Rational Republicans question religion's growing role in their party

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

My hypothesis was, and is that religious people (who are not practicing spirituality, i.e. acceptance and tolerance, and promoting human rights) are not good for our society when they get into the political field.

I don't agree that MLK was inspired by religion, but rather by spirituality.

If you can't see, or know, or understand the difference between religiosity and spirituality, I don't know how to explain it.

Jefferson was spiritual, but as a deist he was not religious.

Maybe that helps, I don't know.

You seem to be missing the point entirely.

Quote from whitster:

"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. "

no, it happens all the time that people in support of an ill defined hypothesis/idea/etc. throw out false statements based on no evidence, in alleged support of their biases and prejudices (as u did) and then when called on it, instead of acknowledging their mistake, merely change the argument

i have quoted you exactly.

i have responded to your false statements and you have now CHANGED them without admitting them

the original point remains

when you AGREE with religious inspired political movements, then it's ok to have religion in politics. when you don't agree, then it's not

that's quite typical and understandable. what is also typical (but not excusable) is promoting falsehoods to promote your pov, and then when called on their falsity denying that you made them

you stated what you stated. i quoted it. i can quote you again, but you won't have the intellectual honesty to respond to what YOU claimed. that much is clear

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

MLK's arguments were not based on the bible, they were based on his spirituality.

That he was a Baptist or Christian was not an issue at all, that he read the Bible was not the issue, that he spoke to Universal principles of human rights and spirituality is the point, and why he broke across the boundaries of religious fundamentalism.

Quote from whitster:

i repeat:

here is what u 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."

that is demonstrably false, and i have demonstrated how it is false

you have yet to admit it is false, and instead now claim that i dont "understand" it.

lol.

clearly, to use ONE example, MLK ***did*** use the bible and ***did*** use religious doctrine to make his argument

and you can't simply aDMIT that, so have instead changed the argument.

which is sad, intellectually dishonest, and the refuge of a scoundrel

cognitive dissonance hurt too much?

 

[whitster]

"My hypothesis was, and is that religious people (who are not practicing spirituality, i.e. acceptance and tolerance, and promoting human rights) are not good for our society when they get into the political field."

that may be your (now revised) hypothesis, but it is not what u said....

i already quoted what u 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....."

you are wrong. they WERE

here's a hint : MLK
Southern CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

note it is not "southern spirituality leadership conference"

just lift up yer skirt and have some frigging sack. you were wrong

DEEPLY RELIGIOUS FOLKS WHO WERE/ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, ***WERE*** USING THE BIBLE OR OTHER RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE"

you are wrong.

Martin Luther King FOUNDED the SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE. not the "southern christian SPIRITUALITY conference". hth

and he WASN"T using the "bible or other religious doctrine" to make his arguments?

that is categorically INSANE

i have read almost everything MLK ever wrote. and you are CLEARLY wrong. but you continue to wallow in ignorance instead of admitting a simple mistake

here's a mistake. people who can admit being wrong, are open minded. they can LEARN. can you?

your definition of "acceptance and tolerance and promoting human rights" may in fact (lord forbid) BE DIFFERENT from others who are inspired (or not) by religion.

that doesn't make their religiously inspired thought less valid, or less democratic than yours. i, personally, am pro-choice. but many relgiiously inspired civil rights leaders see abortion as a VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. can u understand that?

again, this comes down to one thing. when religiously inspired political action is insync with your beliefs, it's ok. otherwise, it's anti-democratic.

and it also comes down to you makign false statements. i have a copy of two books right here by MLK. i can quote ad infinitum examples that disprove your "theory" about religiousity, the bible, MLK and the civil rights movement. i can do the same with the women's suffrage movement, the abolition movement etc.

care to discuss the Quakers?

how about the underground railroad?

cmon. get real. get educated and free your mind

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

There is no revision of my hypothesis. I have discussed many times in Chit Chat the difference in my mind between religion and spirituality.

I don't consider religious dogma as spiritual, or any religious practice that promotes divisiveness or judgment of others.

MLK wasn't dogmatic, wasn't propagating religious dogma, nor religious fundamentalism. He was propagating human rights, and spiritualism. That he was a Christian, or Baptist was secondary. He could have been Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, and his message of human rights would be the same.

God is for everyone, not just one religion.

Spiritual people know this, and MLK was spiritual in his message....which is why people of so many faiths and beliefs supported him.

Nope, there is no change of position on my part, no back peddling, etc.

I have given you my consistent definition of religion as I express it here in Chit Chat, now you know....

I really don't know what your problem is....

Quote from whitster:

"My hypothesis was, and is that religious people (who are not practicing spirituality, i.e. acceptance and tolerance, and promoting human rights) are not good for our society when they get into the political field."

that may be your (now revised) hypothesis, but it is not what u said....

i already quoted what u 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....."

you are wrong. they WERE

here's a hint : MLK
Southern CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

note it is not "southern spirituality leadership conference"

just lift up yer skirt and have some frigging sack. you were wrong

DEEPLY RELIGIOUS FOLKS WHO WERE/ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR ALL, ***WERE*** USING THE BIBLE OR OTHER RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE"

you are wrong.

Martin Luther King FOUNDED the SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE. not the "southern christian SPIRITUALITY conference". hth

and he WASN"T using the "bible or other religious doctrine" to make his arguments?

that is categorically INSANE

i have read almost everything MLK ever wrote. and you are CLEARLY wrong. but you continue to wallow in ignorance instead of admitting a simple mistake

here's a mistake. people who can admit being wrong, are open minded. they can LEARN. can you?

your definition of "acceptance and tolerance and promoting human rights" may in fact (lord forbid) BE DIFFERENT from others who are inspired (or not) by religion.

that doesn't make their religiously inspired thought less valid, or less democratic than yours. i, personally, am pro-choice. but many relgiiously inspired civil rights leaders see abortion as a VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS. can u understand that?

again, this comes down to one thing. when religiously inspired political action is insync with your beliefs, it's ok. otherwise, it's anti-democratic.

and it also comes down to you makign false statements. i have a copy of two books right here by MLK. i can quote ad infinitum examples that disprove your "theory" about religiousity, the bible, MLK and the civil rights movement. i can do the same with the women's suffrage movement, the abolition movement etc.

care to discuss the Quakers?

how about the underground railroad?

cmon. get real. get educated and free your mind

 

[whitster]

"There is no revision of my hypothesis. I have discussed many times in Chit Chat the difference in my mind between religion and spirituality."

that's great. it's irrelevant to the statements you made, that i refuted and that u now refuse to acknowledge.


"I don't consider religious dogma as spiritual, or any religious practice that promotes divisiveness or judgment of others."

all moral codes i am aware of, religious or not, make judgments of others and that's still irrelevant


"MLK wasn't dogmatic, wasn't propagating religious dogma, nor religious fundamentalism. He was propagating human rights, and spiritualism. That he was a Christian, or Baptist was secondary. He could have been Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, and his message of human rights would be the same."
"

that's wonderful but tangential to what has now just become lying (your refusal to acknowledge the falsity of what u said)

we can all have our own groovy little definitions of words that conveniently allow us to morph arguments.

the fact is that you claimed that leaders in the civil rights movement did not use the bible or religion to promote their policy ideas.

i have demonstrated how you are clearly wrong

MLK is but one example. quakers, and several other examples abound., but since you are morally incapable of admitting that you are wrong, there is no point

MLK founded the Southern Christian Leadership Council.

he said OVER and OVER that his views were inspired by CHRISTIANITY

you may not like this, since this doesn't jibe with your view of "spirituality", which basically translates as "all religious ideas i agree with"

the fact is that when leaders promoted ideas YOU agree with, then you can ignore that they are coming from a religious sensibility.

and the thing about buddhism, hinduism, etc. is another strawman

the issue was not that ONLY christians are inspired by the bible/relgious movements.

again, you morph your argument to avoid admittance of error, and you clearly have little to no knowledge of the history of the civil rights movement

you are demonstrably wrong, as i have demonstrated, and like so many others in Usenet, and the Internet, there is the one fundamental rule. one can never admit "i was wrong"

in the case of the HISTORY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT which is a statement, not about your groovy beliefs, but about actual events and people, you have been proven wrong. unless all these speeches of MLK et al about their beliefs were lies (were they?) the substnace of their speeches and actions PROVE your statement to be false. you bring up strawmen after strawmen e.g. "mlk wasn't dogmatic"? how is that relevant? fwiw, many would argue he WAS dogmatic, but that is totally tangential to the issue that he clearly (as demonstrated in his letters and speeches) was inspired in his beliefs by religion, specifically christianity

again, you like it when religious leaders promote ideas YOU agree with, and in that case it';s great, but when they don't - you start bringing up terms like "fundamentalism" etc.

try educating yourself. more important though is a moral recentering. if you can;t admit error, you are still a child, spouting platitudes, but empty inside.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

No, my explanation of my position is not irrelevant. It is fully relevant to my statement, and consistent position against religious fundamentalism, religious dogma, and lack of spirituality in the religious leaders who seek to push their religiosity onto others as it applies to our government.

King was not pushing Christianity onto others, he was not trying to convert others to Christianity, he was trying to benefit the human rights movement, which was, and is secular in nature. He was not just supportive of the black man's rights, but human rights. Many humanists were/are very supportive to his message, as they see it is non religious, but spiritual in the sense that it applies the basic nature of all human beings. He spoke to all human beings, not just his flock of Christians. Same with Gandhi, and other great spiritual voices who go beyond the rigidity of religious dogma to help all mankind.

So the process of clarifying my position so that you understand, take away your misunderstanding (which is obvious) is how communication takes place, and this type of communication can take place when the person I am trying to communicate with is open minded and receptive.

If you are open minded, you get it.

If you are a rigid close minded anal retentive fundamentalist you don't get it.....

I will leave the audience to decide where you are on that scale of open minded to head up ass.....

Quote from whitster:

"There is no revision of my hypothesis. I have discussed many times in Chit Chat the difference in my mind between religion and spirituality."

that's great. it's irrelevant to the statements you made, that i refuted and that u now refuse to acknowledge.


"I don't consider religious dogma as spiritual, or any religious practice that promotes divisiveness or judgment of others."

all moral codes i am aware of, religious or not, make judgments of others and that's still irrelevant


"MLK wasn't dogmatic, wasn't propagating religious dogma, nor religious fundamentalism. He was propagating human rights, and spiritualism. That he was a Christian, or Baptist was secondary. He could have been Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Atheist, and his message of human rights would be the same."
"

that's wonderful but tangential to what has now just become lying (your refusal to acknowledge the falsity of what u said)

we can all have our own groovy little definitions of words that conveniently allow us to morph arguments.

the fact is that you claimed that leaders in the civil rights movement did not use the bible or religion to promote their policy ideas.

i have demonstrated how you are clearly wrong

MLK is but one example. quakers, and several other examples abound., but since you are morally incapable of admitting that you are wrong, there is no point

MLK founded the Southern Christian Leadership Council.

he said OVER and OVER that his views were inspired by CHRISTIANITY

you may not like this, since this doesn't jibe with your view of "spirituality", which basically translates as "all religious ideas i agree with"

the fact is that when leaders promoted ideas YOU agree with, then you can ignore that they are coming from a religious sensibility.

and the thing about buddhism, hinduism, etc. is another strawman

the issue was not that ONLY christians are inspired by the bible/relgious movements.

again, you morph your argument to avoid admittance of error, and you clearly have little to no knowledge of the history of the civil rights movement

you are demonstrably wrong, as i have demonstrated, and like so many others in Usenet, and the Internet, there is the one fundamental rule. one can never admit "i was wrong"

in the case of the HISTORY OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT which is a statement, not about your groovy beliefs, but about actual events and people, you have been proven wrong. unless all these speeches of MLK et al about their beliefs were lies (were they?) the substnace of their speeches and actions PROVE your statement to be false. you bring up strawmen after strawmen e.g. "mlk wasn't dogmatic"? how is that relevant? fwiw, many would argue he WAS dogmatic, but that is totally tangential to the issue that he clearly (as demonstrated in his letters and speeches) was inspired in his beliefs by religion, specifically christianity

again, you like it when religious leaders promote ideas YOU agree with, and in that case it';s great, but when they don't - you start bringing up terms like "fundamentalism" etc.

try educating yourself. more important though is a moral recentering. if you can;t admit error, you are still a child, spouting platitudes, but empty inside.

 

[whitster]

i am not arguing with your "moral position". that is your opinion and more power to you.

i am arguing with your misstatement of facts about how the civil rights movement happened/is happening.

the FORMER is opinion. the latter is fact. the former is not refutable the latter is.

if you cannot understand the different between opinion and fact i feel sorry for you.

as i explained several times (and you are too cowardly to admit), your statements about the civil right movement were false.

i am not arguing your opinions. i am arguing your false statements

which you are too cowardly to admit are false, despite the fact that you have since CHANGED them to try to backpedal

I HAVE CLEARLY demonstrated how your knowledge of history is wrong, specifically vis a vis MLK, but this holds true with several other examples as well (quakers, abolitiion movement, etc.)

again, it's not your OPINION that i refuted. it's your false statements about how the civil rights movement happened

here's where you are wrong.

"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."


that is false. demonstrably so, and i have done so.

and you can't admit that.

for this statement to be false, all that needs to be shown is that the "deeply religious folks) WERE/ARE using the bible **or** other religious doctrine.

hint: they were/are.

i gave two obvious examples.

so, it was a false statement

lift up yer skirt, have a pair, and admit it

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You are obviously looking for a fight, not enlightenment.

Good luck with your shadow boxing....

Quote from whitster:

i am not arguing with your "moral position". that is your opinion and more power to you.

i am arguing with your misstatement of facts about how the civil rights movement happened/is happening.

the FORMER is opinion. the latter is fact. the former is not refutable the latter is.

if you cannot understand the different between opinion and fact i feel sorry for you.

as i explained several times (and you are too cowardly to admit), your statements about the civil right movement were false.

i am not arguing your opinions. i am arguing your false statements

which you are too cowardly to admit are false, despite the fact that you have since CHANGED them to try to backpedal

I HAVE CLEARLY demonstrated how your knowledge of history is wrong, specifically vis a vis MLK, but this holds true with several other examples as well (quakers, abolitiion movement, etc.)

again, it's not your OPINION that i refuted. it's your false statements about how the civil rights movement happened

here's where you are wrong.

"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."


that is false. demonstrably so, and i have done so.

and you can't admit that.

for this statement to be false, all that needs to be shown is that the "deeply religious folks) WERE/ARE using the bible **or** other religious doctrine.

hint: they were/are.

i gave two obvious examples.

so, it was a false statement

lift up yer skirt, have a pair, and admit it

 

[whitster]

no, what i am looking for is intellectual honesty, something u are incapable of. when i am wrong, i admit so. you don't.

it's called being an adult.

it's also good for your p/l