No, I am not back peddling. It happens all the time that some people need clarification of a statement, which is apparently what you need, and what I am providing.
Apparently you didn't understand my point, so I am giving clarification.
I am not responsible for your narrow vision. That is what dialogue is all about, statements then clarification for those who don't get the point.
Clarification has been given, previous statements stand. There is nothing to retract.
I don't know what you are arguing about anyway, we both agree that MLK was a religious man, that what he did was good.
However, he did not make his arguments, arguments that were inclusive in nature....on the basis of religious fundamentalism.
His arguments are based on spirituality, which applies to all people on the basis of Universality of life experience and common sense, not a rigid religiosity of say Pat Robertson.
Maybe when you read the word religious you hear spiritual, I don't.
Major difference between those who are religious in name only and those who are spiritual.
In my opinion, MLK was both religious and spiritual....with the priority given to spirituality...not religious dogmas. He did not condemn those of different religious beliefs, he embraced them.
Pat Robertson, and his ilk on the other hand are religious but in no way spiritual, as they are divisive in nature, not inclusive.
You must be needing to win an argument with all your "back peddling" talk, another sign of the rigidity of the right wing fundamentalist.
Quote from whitster:
you are still backpedaling, changing the argument and using strawmen (cause you made a false statement that you are too cowardly to admit)
let's replay...
you said"
"The deeply religious folks who were/are at the forefront of human rights for all, were/are not using the Bible or other religious doctrine to make their arguments."
i showed how that was false, specifically, in the case of MLK, but there are tons of other examples.
you evaded, strawmen created, then said
"MLK didn't restrict himself to a fundamentalist view of the Bible to spearhead the civil rights movement. He took the message of his personal beliefs, and broadened it to a secular argument for expanding the rights of all...not just blacks. That is why he had such strong support from people of a variety of religious beliefs, colors, cultures, gender, etc"
that's great, but that was not your original statement that i refuted
see above.
it's called "changing the argument" .
cause you were wrong
how about just admitting. MLK ***did*** "use the bible or other religious doctrine"
you initially claimed this was not so.
and MLK's PERSONAL BELIEFS were informed/inspired BY RELIGION
which refutes your original point
you are wrong, and you simply can;'t admit it
you have now morphed the argument from "bible or other religious doctrine" into a "fundamentalist view of the bible" (sorry, that was not your original claim). and you are still ignoring the fact that (as supported by his letters, and writing in the case of MLK's "personal beliefs" *your words* that he wanted IMPOSED on others through policy change were INSPIRED and INFORMED by RELIGION (despite your claim to the contrary)
intellectualy dishonesty is so boring
grow up and address the points YOU made that have since been refuted and that you are now backpedaling from, and trying to change without acknowledging same.
the fact is this. when religiously informed policy changes are those that you agree with, they are ok. when you don't agree with them, they aren't
that's quite typical, but tangential to the falsehoods that you proclaimed
i repeat. the civil rights (and abolition, anti-slavery, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion etc.) movements were inspired by, and in many cases essentially led by people of faith, whose viewpoints were inspired and informed BY THEIR religious beliefs
it was and is true in every case i mention.
but in the case of those you agree with, that's ok. in the cases of those you don't, you evade
evasion noted. backpedaling noted.
