Be a scientific consultant for the Clergy Letter Project!

Why in the world should we support further compartmentalization of the minds of believers. We shouldn't be trying to have religion and science "working together". We should try to have an end to religion, period. We shouldn't tell people that religion and science can work together. They can't unless you just compartmentalize them.

I responded on Aetiology as well, but to add here, it seems then that you're suggesting making religious beliefs a litmus test for scientific outreach. There certainly are people out there working to end religion--and their record of success isn't exactly stellar. In the meantime, I prefer to try to bring science education to anyone who will listen, be they atheist, Christian, Jew, pagan, whatever. What they do with it after regarding compartmentalization isn't as much my concern.

In believing in evolution, one would have to assert the very distinct possibility, that other planets have evolved creatures beyond our own human capabilities.

The meterologic community has already PROVEN that extrateressial life did or does exist with the discovery of meterorite(s) that have fossils of crustacean life forms.

Since our solar system is not very old in comparison with the age of the universe, and since science has shown that there has to have been, and there has to currently be, countless other planets with evironmental changes and atmospheres similar enough to our own as to create life: Who could dispute the idea that more evolved creatures than ourselves have probably existed?

Since our evolutionary tree of life has recently shown us that we did evolve from just one man - and just one woman - we are jumping the gun if we believe we have all of the basic questions of life answered - since our genetic Adam and Eve lived over fourty thousand years apart from each other.

Modern science contends that we all had a common female ancestry: Genetic Eve. The common scientific theory states that there were others; however, all of the others' lineages were halted, except for that of Genetic Eve's.

Okay, I can buy that. There weren't alot of us around at the time.

Then modern scientific theory states that anywhere from 47 thousand to 100 thousand years later, all but Genetic Adam's lineage was killed off.

Well, that is, all but Genetic Adam's lineage who had Genetic Eve as their biological mom, grandmom, great grandmom - you get the picture.

This is where I start to get skeptical.

The once popular, and very logical-seeming idea, that modern man evolved from different types of hominoids in different parts of the world, is no longer a popular theory - since our study of the genetic code has told us otherwise.

Couple this with the fact that we are now discovering (like at extreme ocean depths & in volcanic ash) that there are life forms that exist here on this earth, that are outside of the regular carbon-based life forms that we had thought - only until recently - could not exist: Then the chances of other, different types of intelligent life forms having evolved before us - and beyond us - is all but a given on other older planets far, far away. (Or maybe not so far away.)

Taking into account that evolution is a given, then why couldn't a more advanced species have influenced life on this Earth, relatively recently?

This would account for the common basis that many of our religions are based on.

This would also account for things such as the large ancient drawings that can only be seen clearly from very, very high up in the sky.

This could also account for Genetic Adam and Eve having lived so many thousands of years apart.

I believe, that to completely scoff at this possibility, is akin to scoffing at evolution itself, because by its own tenets, life should have blossomed all over the universe. Well not everywhere; by far, but on a countless number of planets, given the number of planets in the universe, and the number of years for the combinations to take place.

Then look at our own advances in the past 200 years. Our industrial and technological revolutions are astonishing! How can the slow progress of evolution explain the last few thousand years - or ten thousand years, at least. Especially the last few hundred years. Wow!

There is a quote that is in the bible that is found in two places, the quote ends in two different ways.

The popular quote I am referring to is, "God did not want man to eat from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil . . ."

Does anyone know the rest of this sentence, where this part of the phrase is mentioned the second time in the Bible (in Genesis)??

It it is such a popular phrase from the Bible; how does this sentence end??

Anyone??

The full sentence reads, "God did not want man to eat from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil, BECAUSE THEN HE WILL EAT FROM THE TREE OF LIFE AND LIVE FOREVER, LIKE US."

Just food for thought, guys, that's all.

I would like to see a new modern "religion" based on the study and manipulation of Telomerase, myself. Make Telomerase the Head, and then the resultant genetic interactions affecting the shrinking (and possible lengthening) of Telomerase, the Body.

In this way we could construct an actual working model to accomplish the immortality inherent behind all religious beliefs.

;)

Since our evolutionary tree of life has recently shown us that we did evolve from just one man - and just one woman - we are jumping the gun if we believe we have all of the basic questions of life answered - since our genetic Adam and Eve lived over fourty thousand years apart from each other. Modern science contends that we all had a common female ancestry: Genetic Eve. The common scientific theory states that there were others; however, all of the others' lineages were halted, except for that of Genetic Eve's. Okay, I can buy that. There weren't alot of us around at the time.

Taking into account that evolution is a given, then why couldn't a more advanced species have influenced life on this Earth, relatively recently?

I responded on Aetiology as well, but to add here, it seems then that you're suggesting making religious beliefs a litmus test for scientific outreach. There certainly are people out there working to end religion---and their record of success isn't exactly stellar. In the meantime, I prefer to try to bring science education to anyone who will listen, be they atheist, Christian, Jew, pagan, whatever. What they do with it after regarding compartmentalization isn't as much my concern.

Glen,

Okay. Has the mapping of other mammalian species genomes traced the mitochondrial DNA back to just one female contributor of their mitochondrial DNA, also?

Thank you for answering.

Learn to read the responses you receive.

Popper's Ghost explained to you on that other thread that there is nothing unusual about this result, unfortunately termed "Mitochondrial Eve." It's a logical necessity that such an individual exist in any sexually reproducing lineage. The mapping is irrelevant to the result. It's of interest only for the purpose of assigning a date to the last common ancestor.

Glen, Okay. Has the mapping of other mammalian species genomes traced the mitochondrial DNA back to just one female contributor of their mitochondrial DNA, also? Thank you for answering.

By studying the mitochondrial DNA of 979 domestic and wild cats from Europe, Asia and Africa the researchers concluded that the origins of the species -- what O'Brien calls a feline Adam and Eve -- developed between 130,000 and 160,000 years ago. Mitochondrial DNA is passed down from mother to child.

This discussion seems headed in the same direction as the previous one with Paul Nelson. Trace some trait in a purely linear fashion back to a single individual.... It's reminiscent of the song Dem Bones. The foot bone connected to the ankle bone, etc. all in a nice linear fashion and all ending in "hear the word of the Lord". For some, a nice neat easily digestible package.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

We shouldn't be trying to have religion and science "working together". We should try to have an end to religion, period.

We shouldn't tell people that religion and science can work together. They can't unless you just compartmentalize them.

I like this idea as a political statement. It reminds me that I'm not against all Christians, just the willfully ignorant ones.

Religion needs more ways like this to separate itself from the crazy people.

In believing in evolution, one would have to assert the very distinct possibility, that other planets have evolved creatures beyond our own human capabilities.

The meterologic community has already PROVEN that extrateressial life did or does exist with the discovery of meterorite(s) that have fossils of crustacean life forms.

since science has shown that there has to have been, and there has to currently be, countless other planets with evironmental changes and atmospheres similar enough to our own as to create life

Taking into account that evolution is a given, then why couldn't a more advanced species have influenced life on this Earth, relatively recently?

This would account for the common basis that many of our religions are based on.

This would also account for things such as the large ancient drawings that can only be seen clearly from very, very high up in the sky.

Then look at our own advances in the past 200 years. Our industrial and technological revolutions are astonishing! How can the slow progress of evolution explain the last few thousand years - or ten thousand years, at least. Especially the last few hundred years. Wow!

The full sentence reads, "God did not want man to eat from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil, BECAUSE THEN HE WILL EAT FROM THE TREE OF LIFE AND LIVE FOREVER, LIKE US."

In addition to creating a useful resource for clergy, I am hoping for the list to make a major political statement: religious leaders and scientists can work together --- despite what religious fundamentalists claim.

By the way, why would clergymen who already support evolutionism be making questions to Darwinian scientists?

So basically, all religions are welcome, except the ones that are skeptical of unguided evolutionism.

So basically, all religions are welcome, except the ones that are skeptical of unguided evolutionism.

— Mats

What's the point of answering the "questions" of intellectually dishonest clergy?

— Glen D

I wouldn't necessarily equate skeptical clergy with intellectually dishonest clergy. The large majority of ordinary clergy are probably not very well educated in biological and physical sciences. You can't really say someone is intellectually dishonest until they've had the opportunity to review the relevant evidence and continue to make dishonest arguments in the face of that evidence. I would give everyone the benefit of the doubt at first until they prove to be intellectually dishonest. Otherwise, you'll give the appearance of simply categorizing anybody that disagrees with you as being "dishonest."

Learn to read the responses you receive. Popper's Ghost explained to you on that other thread

So basically, all religions are welcome, except the ones that are skeptical of unguided evolutionism.

By the way, why would clergymen who already support evolutionism be making questions to Darwinian scientists?

Seems to me that Michael Zimmerman has a lot of time in his hands.

What would be interesting is if clergymen who support science BUT are skeptical of unguided evolutionism were given time and space to post questions to Darwinian scientists.

I wonder if Michael Zimmerman would be happy to spearhead that initiative..?

I don't know if she believes in space crustaceans.

Re: space crustaceans.

I seem to remember a move to shorten their name to "spacestaceans," or something like that.

But NASA had a concern that the nickname for these loveable critters would sound too much like "Space Stations." In which NASA had already invested a lot of stationery, letter-heads, graphics, etc.

So then the congressional subcommittees and the unlisted alphabet agencies got involved, the black helicopters were dispatched, and that was, effectively, the end of that.

Which is why it's heartwarming to learn that the existence of space crustaceans hasn't been entirely erased from the fossil record, merely due to an unfortunate resemblance to a NASA program.

Conceited man- would you rather have religious people who will listen or religious people who won't. Those are your two options. If we can win people to science, let so be it.

[W]ould you rather have religious people who will listen or religious people who won't.

harold

By "we" I mean atheists, or non-believers in general.

As for how to have and end to it, I don't know how it is possible. But it still needs to be attempted.

What makes people's private mental life my business? Nothing. On the other hand if people want to believe foolishness, I have every right not to support them, and moreover to try and change their minds.

As for "specific behaviors" that is precisely want religious people want you to do. Once you start doing that, they will start with the "Oh, but true [insert religion here] doesn't advocate THAT".

Glen

Why refuse the pulpit? Why refuse a debate with a creationist? Because you don't want to give them any ammo. The idea that you can have religious people and scientists working together against other religious people sens the message that SOME religious beliefs are ok.

Tara

I am not suggesting that we should make religious beliefs a litmus test. I am saying that the only involvement science should have with religion is opposition. Yes, from a practical standpoint the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Emma Glosser wrote: The meterologic [sic] community has already PROVEN that extrateressial life did or does exist with the discovery of meterorite(s) [sic] that have fossils of crustacean life forms.

Well Done! At long last, someone has had the amazing forethought to have science and religion come together in a way that is conducive to both parties. Since the clergy are looking for scientific answers, the beliefs of the authority don't matter, as long as the answer is put into context as being "this is what the majority of the scientific community has come to understand up to this point".

"Me Myself and I asked: How can religion and science ever work together?" Raven: This is silly beyond belief. 82% of the US population identifies itself as christian. 6% is other religions, 11% atheistic. Yet a large share of the world's science (roughly 50%) is done in the USA and we are so far the acknowledged leader. If science couldn't coexist with religion this wouldn't have happened. The US would be some backwater banana republic. The scientific revolution started in Europe among a population much more religious than it is now. Many great scientists were religious, Newton, Maxwell, Copernicus, and so on. The serious attack on science in the USA is from a few cults in the south central part. Not the mainstream protestants or catholics, the great majority. Surprise, fundamental atheists can be just as dogmatic and fanatical as fundie xians. What next a fundie atheist fatwa, crusade, or shrine somewhere? LOL

MMI again: I am not suggesting that we should make religious beliefs a litmus test. I am saying that the only involvement science should have with religion is opposition. Yes, from a practical standpoint the enemy of my enemy is my friend. [bolding added by raven]

So basically, all religions are welcome, except the ones that are skeptical of unguided evolutionism.

— Mats

I would agree that most (if not all) scientists would conclude that there is a possibility that more advanced creatures have evolved on other planets.

raven

Science is about searching for truth. We use methodological naturalism because there is nothing else TO use that can be remotely thought as reliable.

The idea that the "current attack" on science is from a minority is false. The most vocal attack may be from a minority. But the simple fact is, religious beliefs are false. While you can believe both false and true things by compartmentalizing your mind, its hardly something thta should be done. Atheists shouldn't support compartmentalization. We should support scientific outreach, but not in this way.

If enough scientists not only say that religious beliefs are stupid, but continue to demonstrate that they are scientifically, again and again, people will come around.

Finally, science is not equal to atheism. But science is absolutely incompatible with theism.

By "we" I mean atheists, or non-believers in general.

As for how to have and end to it, I don't know how it is possible. But it still needs to be attempted.

What makes people's private mental life my business? Nothing.

On the other hand if people want to believe foolishness, I have every right not to support them, and moreover to try and change their minds.

As for "specific behaviors" that is precisely want religious people want you to do. Once you start doing that, they will start with the "Oh, but true [insert religion here] doesn't advocate THAT".

We use methodological naturalism because there is nothing else TO use that can be remotely thought as reliable.

By the way, why would clergymen who already support evolutionism be making questions to Darwinian scientists?

Science is about searching for truth. We use methodological naturalism because there is nothing else TO use that can be remotely thought as reliable.

It's honestly what you'd expect given evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.

Nothing new here, but it's certainly an interesting development, that's for sure. It's honestly what you'd expect given evolution's incompatibility with Christianity.

Everyone acknowledges that there is at least something other than "methodological naturalism" that is reliable. Mathematics would be one candidate.

harold

I do not have a full and complete definition of religion. What I do have is that part of religion is belief in the supernatural, and the emphasis on faith over reason. That's all I need to have.

Again, you ask about what specific actions I have in mind. Unfortunately, I have none. I know it needs to be done, but I don't know how it can be done. When I figure out a way it might be done I will let you know.

Finally, getting into a conversation with a religious believer about specific behaviors that believers in that religion have done is rather pointless. Once you do so, they will simply say "Oh, but true [] doesn't advocate THAT". Focusing on how religious believers act immorally is pointless, because as long as one does not, they will always have that excuse. The important thing is to focus on how religious belief is simply wrong.

Because when Darwinist clergy are confronted with informed questions and thoughtful points raised by their Non-Darwinist, Bible-believing clergy peers, (perhaps partticularly in regards to evolution not being compatible with Christianity),

given evolution's incompatibility with Christianity

Most people develop some concerns when every knowledgeable person in a given scientific field disagrees with them EXCEPT those of their religious faith. Most people might wonder if perhaps their faith might be, you know, clouding their understanding. Fundamentalists seem immune to such concerns, but I think most clergy are bigger than that.

Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Unless you neuter Christianity to be of no consequence.

Evolution just has that unfortunate quality (for Christians) of being true.

I wouldn't necessarily equate skeptical clergy with intellectually dishonest clergy. The large majority of ordinary clergy are probably not very well educated in biological and physical sciences. You can't really say someone is intellectually dishonest until they've had the opportunity to review the relevant evidence and continue to make dishonest arguments in the face of that evidence.

On the contrary, I would consider someone who makes arguments on a subject in which they have not bothered to review the relevant evidence to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty of the most unambiguous sort. If they were intellectually honest, they would have reviewed the relevant evidence before staking a position on the subject. (Let's dispense with this "skepticism" nonsense; skepticism without interest in evidence is just disbelief.)

I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that the concept of "more advanced" is not something meaningful in today's evolutionary biology.

— TomS

If I, as a minister, need assitence in my understanding of evolution, geology etc and I can't work it out for myself (Yes some clergy do know some science) I either e-mail or phone scientists for help. As I am in Britain I often contact FRS's several of whom are Christians and some even Evangelicals!!!!!!

I also consider it just possible for an atheist to be a scientist:):)

May I ask for those here is science the most important thing or getting rid of any kind of religion?

As for myself, promoting one is basically promoting the other. Whenever you promote science you promote a-religious thought.

May I ask for those here is science the most important thing or getting rid of any kind of religion?

On the contrary, I would consider someone who makes arguments on a subject in which they have not bothered to review the relevant evidence to be engaging in intellectual dishonesty of the most unambiguous sort. If they were intellectually honest, they would have reviewed the relevant evidence before staking a position on the subject. (Let's dispense with this "skepticism" nonsense; skepticism without interest in evidence is just disbelief.)

— Coin

I do not have a full and complete definition of religion... The important thing is to focus on how religious belief is simply wrong. / Again, you ask about what specific actions I have in mind. Unfortunately, I have none. I know it needs to be done, but I don't know how it can be done.

So you don't know what religion is, you just know it's wrong and it must be eradicated. You don't know what eradicating religion would mean, or how it would be done, you just want to do it.

This isn't even atheism. It's just tribalism: glorification of the self and demonization of the Other.

As for myself, promoting one is basically promoting the other. Whenever you promote science you promote a-religious thought.

Except here we have an example of a project-- the clergy letter project-- which strives to promote science without specifically doing anything to promote or attack religious thought. Presented with this project, you attacked the project itself on the grounds it didn't help your goal of "ending" religious thought. Funny, that.

Harold wrote -

May I ask for those here is science the most important thing or getting rid of any kind of religion?

I guess you arrived a bit late to read the thread for yourself. Some may find your question a bit insulting, in the context of what they have already explained.

I'll only presume to speak for myself. I have no desire to "get rid of any kind of religion", nor do I see that as a reasonable or definable goal. In fact I consider myself to be "religious", in a very broad and universal sense, although most followers of traditional religions might dispute that.

I was not criticisng your type of view at all. I get on fine with most whether atheist or not, but I get fed up with those who put in posts like this;

Posted by Me Myself and I on July 18, 2007 4:42 PM (e)

As for myself, promoting one is basically promoting the other. Whenever you promote science you promote a-religious thought.

Frankly that is as daft as the nonsense from AIG, ICR or Uncouth Dissent (whoops Uncommon descent)

I hold that those who hold an agressive atheism with attitudes like that in fact only increase some nutty kind of creationism.

May I ask for those here is science the most important thing or getting rid of any kind of religion?

I agree with Me, Myself, and I regarding a conflict between religion and science (although I disagree about how to deal with it). At its core, science strives to find natural causes for observable events. Most religions are based on the occurrence of at least some supernatural events. But, if supernatural events do take place, then how can we trust the framework of science that relies on there always being a natural cause for all events? Also, scientific beliefs are formed based on evidence not faith, which is a hallmark of religions. There isn't a shred of evidence that an afterlife or heaven or hell exist. So, according to science these ideas should be rejected. But, religions embrace them.
In an ideal world, a scientist could simply say "Who cares what you believe? If it conflicts with my work, oh well" and continue to go about his work. But the reality is that religion affects people's actions and their politics, and politics can lead to actual detriments to science, so you can't simply ignore the religious beliefs of others. Eliminating religion is not the answer however. As a previous poster said, attacking religions directly will likely lead to a stronger resistance to science.
My personal belief is that religion is a good thing (most of the time) and if it gives people a purpose for living, makes them happy and keeps them out of trouble, society will benefit. If religions try to screw with science, simply put up a strong defense as is currently being done. But by and large religions can co-exist peacefully with science.

My personal belief is that religion is a good thing (most of the time) and if it gives people a purpose for living, makes them happy and keeps them out of trouble, society will benefit. If religions try to screw with science, simply put up a strong defense as is currently being done. But by and large religions can co-exist peacefully with science.

— Phatty

I wasn't referring to the clergy that "make arguments on the subject" or "stake out a position."... If asked about their beliefs these people will likely spout out whatever informed or misinformed view they have been exposed to. In the case of clergy, they will likely respond with the official viewpoint of their religion.

I think it is extremely unfair (not to mention impracticable) for you to expect people to explore all the relevant evidence regarding their beliefs.

For example, I believe that Pluto exists in our solar system, even though I have never actually taken the time to pull out a telescope and look through it myself to see if it is there.

I agree with Me, Myself, and I regarding a conflict between religion and science (although I disagree about how to deal with it). At its core, science strives to find natural causes for observable events. Most religions are based on the occurrence of at least some supernatural events.

But, if supernatural events do take place, then how can we trust the framework of science that relies on there always being a natural cause for all events?

Also, scientific beliefs are formed based on evidence not faith, which is a hallmark of religions. There isn't a shred of evidence that an afterlife or heaven or hell exist.

So, according to science these ideas should be rejected.

Re "What is the difference between a member of the clergy that blindly believes in evolution without reviewing evidence and the member of the clergy that blindly disbelieves in evolution without reviewing the evidence?"

In one case, he/she is taking the word of the experts in a field, in the other, he/she is claiming that thousands of experts are incompetent, pretty much all of them, all in the same way, not just a few being mistaken about details - even without studying the evidence, that by itself seems extremely unlikely.

Re "At its core, science strives to find natural causes for observable events."

I disagree. At its core, science looks for consistent patterns among verifiable observations. The only reason "natural" has become associated with that is because nobody has found consistent verifiable patterns outside of that category. (There's also a chance that something previously thought of as not natural might get reclassified as natural if it became verifiable that way.)

Henry

Question: Why is it desirable to have religious practitioners go to their clergy with questions about evolution?

Let's be generous, and assume both the clergy member and questioning layperson are genuinely intellectually curious and willing to accept biological consensus. Even granting that, what's the point? The clergy member ought to tell the person to go take a bloody class at a proper college, like the rest of us. Or at least check out a book at the public library. Or go on Wikipedia, for Chrissake. In other words, go to an actual expert, or to their writings, as you would for anything else you don't understand.

This project is aimed at clergy who are already accepting of science. But once they're to that point, what more is to be done? Clergy aren't science teachers, and shouldn't be. Neither should politicians, or English teachers, or firemen. Division of labor exists for a reason.

Scientific outreach should be done. But there's no reason to actively seek out traditionally hostile fora to serve as information conduits. We've come too far, with public education, near-universal literacy, public libraries, and accessible information technology, for example, to meekly hand the role of gatekeeper of knowledge back to superstitious nincompoops with their own agendas who don't deserve it. Even if they're nice.

May I ask for those here is science the most important thing or getting rid of any kind of religion?

— Michael Roberts

In other words, your "outreach" is preperatory to eliminating all religion, as the very first comment said. The fact that no one really called it out lets the cat out of the bag.

They both claim to view it as nothing more than a collection of simple-minded superstitions that will be abandoned if adherents are not kept ignorant.

is science the most important thing or getting rid of any kind of religion?

Neo-Anti-Luddite wrote in Comment #188583: Emma Glosser wrote: The meterologic [sic] community has already PROVEN that extrateressial life did or does exist with the discovery of meterorite(s) [sic] that have fossils of crustacean life forms.

You think so? My reading is that the most dismissive atheists regard those parts of those religions that cannot survive the light of knowledge as what will be abandoned if good science education is universal. At the very least, education should call into question faith in things demonstrably contrary to reality, and make people wonder about claims not falsifiable on paper yet clearly not descriptive of anything - you know, stuff like gods and demigods and miracles. But no amount of education is likely to make people abandon a sense of right and wrong.

harold,

Yes, I'm aware that there is a subset of atheists who focus on the nonexistence of gods rather than on protocols for unifying social structures through shared systems of values. And who furthermore don't take the nonexistence of gods as the default pending evidence to the contrary, but rather as a philosophical position impervious to evidence. But even these people don't seem to be taking the position that Buddhism results from intellectual child abuse! So I see them as basically overreacting to the pious arrogance of Christian absolute certainties, by substituting pious certainties of their own.

But not all atheists are thoughtful and reasonable.

But even these people don't seem to be taking the position that Buddhism results from intellectual child abuse! So I see them as basically overreacting to the pious arrogance of Christian absolute certainties, by substituting pious certainties of their own.

harold,

You may be interested in Kevin Phillips' view of this. I think it's fairly persuasive.

The parts of religion that "cannot survive the light of knowledge" as one poster put it, is basically every part that makes religion something other than morality. Supernatural beliefs? Gone. The ability to be judgemental and arrogant because after all, you are only God's messenger? Gone. Vengeance in the name of God? Gone.

Sure, morality would remain. Morality that is based on something other than Imperial edict.

Also, as atheism doesn't depend on revealed knowledge, but careful, rational thought, I do not think that we would canonize anyone. The whole idea is pretty much ridiculous.

The Clergy Project is not "scientific outreach". What the clergy project does, is enable some clergy to show that some religious beliefs are "ok". That is false.

The last great atheistic quasi-religion was communism.

Except that it was a political cult, where the atheism was coincidental.

One might as well say that the Southern Baptist Convention is a political cult, where the theism is coincidental.

One might as well say that the Southern Baptist Convention is a political cult, where the theism is coincidental.

a not-so-clever twist on words, that is unfortunately, completely wrong.

IF the politics were actually BASED on atheism (how could they be?) then you could use this construct.

now looking at the SBC, their politics is entirely BASED on their idea of theism.

so, no go. You can't validly project your familiarity with evangelical outreach in the way you are.

One might as well say that the Southern Baptist Convention is a political cult, where the theism is coincidental.

Except that it was a political cult, where the atheism was coincidental. One might as well say that the Southern Baptist Convention is a political cult, where the theism is coincidental.

One might as well say that the Southern Baptist Convention is a political cult, where the theism is coincidental.

I don't see this as being false.

Even if the Southern Baptist Convention was equivalent to the conservative movement or the religious right (which it isn't), it would still be absurd to claim that any connection between it and theism is "coincidental".

Re "tcpyh qmwjxroi pudbk xzflega mtzx zdlbjnao fxobunph"

I wonder, can anybody explain this random letter spam that seems to be a fad nowadays? Can somebody actually somehow sell something that way?

Henry