Originally Posted by kazbates
Frankly, what I find surprising is the ridicule and vehemence with which many in this thread are commenting on the opinion of the original poster. Whether you agree with his statements or not, he has a right to voice his opinions without being made to feel foolish. I find it interesting how the word, "Intolerance" is used in regards to msmith when it can easily be used toward many of those posting an opposing view. Unfortunately, anytime someone presents themselves as a Christian, people jump to the conclusion that they are fanatical and intolerant when that is generally not the case.
For those who wonder how references to God can be included in much of our American government, the founding fathers were predominently believers whose families came to this country to worship freely in whatever way they chose. When our constitution was written, there was some discussion whether or not to include a reference to God. They chose to include it based on the fact that the majority of people in the colonies were believers. More importantly, the separation of church and state does not say that our government cannot make reference to a diety. It states that there cannot be any government sanctioned or sponsored religion.
As for promoting the book, people who are searching for something to justify their stance on an issue will usual find it.
Noted in red. A very generalized statement that is not worthy of you.
A word to the wise, threads at MR tend to have a life all their own. If anyone has a concern about having their opinion bashed to bits, it's probably best not to post it in the first place. When I think of all the names I've been called for expressing an opinion ... snork. Too funny.
But, really, the OP made a loaded statement, and then asked if anyone else shared the opinion. That's a bit like walking into a tiger cage wearing a raw meat outfit with a sign that says "Eat Me!!"
As to your last statement, that's true about any issue. "[P]eople who are searching for something to justify their stance on an issue will usual [sic] find it."
I'll go you one better. People who are searching for something to justify their stance on an issue will always
find it. Even if they have to make it up.
As an example, I'd love to know from what credible source the statistic of 90% of Americans believing in (a) god came from. Considering that a large percentage of Americans are still of an age where they still believe in the Easter Bunny .... that's just not saying all that much.
Originally Posted by mtravellerh
Might be right field actually
Eh, maybe you're right on that .... so perhaps it would be better if I just said "outfield."