Originally Posted by Megan
Excellent points, dor, and as I said earlier, a Reign of Terror is scarcely to be preferred over an Inquisition.
Dawkins is thinking emotionally and not pragmatically, and certainly not scientifically on religious issues, IMO.
Here is an example of a pragmatic agnostic's thinking, which I can easily find common cause with--how about you, dor?
"When you're student, grad student or associate professor, you vent in your blog; when you get tenure, you get to vent in a book."
...and some of us are just confined to message boards .....
i think he sound pretty sensible - he doesn't get caught up in this crusade to stamp out religion, which is Dawkin's 'religion'.
Concerning his point i agree, but we probably disagree on the where the line is drawn....
I guess then it goes to what we believe the constitution to say - is it really to the point that the city of los angeles most remove a cross from its seal (by that logic st. paul and st. petersburg are 'discriminatory cities') or did the founding fathers ,who had a chaplain reside over the convention, more concerned about a central official state religion rather than removing religion from the public square -
or to the point where private schools are compelled to remove chapel or not get federal funds- isn't that discriminating against religion?
its my belief the amendment was meant to keep the goverment from getting so heavy handed as to tell towns they can't (or must have!) a creche.
Most famously, at the same time the ACLU sued to remove a cross from a National Park, they sued to force taxpayers to fund an Elephant dung Virgin Mary painting Catholics (which I am not) found offensive. That should tell you something about their agenda.