Oh, I dunno, other than that some Enlightenment thinkers whose ideas were central to the manner in which our government was structured felt that religion had a crucial role to play in its foundation and enduring success?
Just because the Declaration of Independence wrote that Natural Rights are given from god does not make the Constitution and the US government founded upon Christianity or anything that was written in the Bible. It's pretty outstanding that you can argue for this, while at the same time state that one of the successes of the Enlightenment was "understanding that religion and politics mix like oil and water." It's just wildly incoherent in presentation, if not outright doublethink.
If it's bizarre that's only because you've distorted my meaning on all three fronts. Let's take them one at a time, shall we?
I doubt it, but okay.
I never claimed you called anyone on this thread "immoral."
FieldTheorist: "I'm fine admitting that religion played a partial role (on both sides) for abolitionism, but you can't even admit that secular Enlightenment philosophers and supporters played any role whatsoever. So tell me, who's being intellectually dishonest here?" Post
#94.
Ahlevah: "
I'm not the one who called anyone or anything
'immoral.'" Post
#97.
The fact that you can't even respond to straightforward questions without deflecting is pretty ludicrous, but it's even more ludicrous that you won't acknowledge that you said this
one post ago.
You did claim that Christianity is immoral.
Correct, or at least specific doctrines of Christianity are immoral. I gave examples, such as gay rights.
Since believers generally incorporate the moral teachings of their religion into their personal ethics I find it disingenuous to claim that people who adhere to an "immoral" doctrine are still "moral" beings in your eyes
For the most part, I'd prefer to call individual actions immoral, and the beliefs behind the immoral behavior. They may be wildly immoral, it depends upon their actions and whether or not they adhere to that particular doctrine of Christianity. We now have a whole host of Christians engaging in an industry of denying that the Bible says anything negative about gays. Of course, it's pure
post-hoc rationalization, just like you asserting that religion couldn't be used to justify slavery. Either way, I'm glad that people are giving the Bible less and less credence.
I never judged Islam or Judaism as "wrong and immoral." In fact, I made an explicit reference to the role Hebrew law played in cultivating our Western legal institutions.
Not verbatim, but you have heavily implied it, e.g.
"The men who created our country and system of government were overwhelmingly Protestant, and yet they saw fit to include in our constitution the Establishment and Separation Clauses of the First Amendment. How many Muslim countries can you name, sir, that have done anything remotely similar? Can you name ONE? I'll bet not. Some might pay lip service to supporting the rights of religious minorities, but to one degree or another Islam figures into the way they organize their governments. They also don't generally support your apparent pet cause and major peeve with Christians, gay rights."
Either you think none of this is a problem (that's impossible to reconcile with everything you've written up to this point) or you do in fact have a problem with the Islamic teachings. Now how you choose to label your dissatisfaction with the morality of the Islamic doctrines is one thing, but let's not pretend like you think that Islam is an essentially moral set of guidelines for how to live your life.
(But much like Christians who disregard almost the entirety of the Bible, e.g. yourself, most Western Muslims choose to disregard whole sections of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Sunnah that they don't find "relevant anymore." And thank god for that.)
Well, you're basically talking out of both side of your mouth because you say, on the one hand, "A few Christians did some good things but it was the secularists who led the charge against slavery" or white supremacy while, on the other hand, you adhere to your basic premise that organized religion is immoral.
See my previous post. I'm not responding to this blatant strawman fallacy again.
