Visualize this spectacle: a debate between a neocon and a progressive. The subject is religion. One of them is there to defend religion, to praise God, to cheerlead for even the most devout. The other -- his opponent -- is an atheist. He skewers deities and those who follow deities. He calls them evil. Toxic. Childish. He mocks doctrine. Railing that the devout want to kill us and control the world, he is on a mission, as it were, to vanquish missions. You'd expect the liberal to be the atheist and the neocon to vouch for the devout. No-brainer, right? Well, no.
More.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I find the following to be the most interesting part of the article:
"'The problem,' he countered, 'is not religion. The problem is religious orthodoxy.'"
I would be very tempted to argue the opposite (I need to think about it more before)... it appears to me that the problems with religion stem when orthodoxy is disregarded, particularly when it is disregarded for personal gain, and especially when the unorthodox veil their actions and call themselves orthodox. This statement could have led to a very interesting discussion.
Post a Comment