Spirituality and the 95% withdrawal.

There seems to be a certain idea that for everything there is a Golden Mean. If there's two sides which are categorically opposed, the truth lies somewhere in the center. In reality one side can, in fact, be completely wrong. With fundamentalists and atheists we have the moderate theists who agree with atheists in spirit when they address the problems of fundamentalism but refuse rather to accept atheism is the answer rather the truth lies in the middle, not no God or too much God but the Just Enough God of spiritualism.

How can you be a rational individual while not being a crazy fundamentalists and don't want to be called an atheist? You can just take some extremely wishy-washy middle ground either it's claiming to be agnostic (not in the proper sense but in the weak atheist sense) because you don't disbelieve in God as you claim atheists do (you just don't have any evidence that he doesn't exist either), or the higher power claim laced with large amounts of special pleading. There simply MUST be something more! THERE MUST! THIS CAN'T BE EVERYTHING! Note that when they say "this", they are referring to everything. And then there's spirituality, where they believe in something vague and spiritual. Who could argue with that? Or the liberal Christianity side where you pay occasional lip service to Jesus without having read any part of the Bible or going to church.

The idea that the truth lies somewhere in the middle and that going all the way to one side opens you up to criticism. Which is pretty well the reason why the Democratic primary front runners all support this plan for a 95% withdrawal. Oh, we'll remove everybody from the Iraq except one brigade who we will have in this one bunker. You're surrendering! You're going to lose this war! "No see because I have a bunch of guys in a bunker somewhere during this civil war, that's why I don't really lose. I'm spiritual. None of this, it was a bad idea from the start and I'll completely wash my hands of it, I'll just wash my hands of as much as I can without being called a coward. I have just enough God... and just enough stupidity."

We really need to make the middle less solid ground, politically, religiously, and practically. Collaborators shouldn't be tolerated.

Criticism: what to whom.

If criticizing fundamentalists: Good they should be criticized. However, they aren't the nice nuanced modern day faiths to which reasonable people adhere. You can reasonably criticize the religious nuts but why react with atheism. There always sensible, reasonable, moderate faiths to believe in.

If criticizing moderates: Why are you trying to take something comforting away from people? You should criticize fundamentalists, they are the ones causing the problems after all!

If criticizing atheists: Psalms 14:1... the BIBLE IS REAL AND YOU SHOULD BELEIVE IN GOD THIS IS ONE NATION UNDER GOD! IN GOD WE TRUST! REPENT! I Know in my Heart that GOD IS REAL!!!11!!one!!

If criticizing postmodernists: the emperor has no cloths. Those words are strung together and are complete gobbly-gook. To say that that crap makes no sense doesn't make me look stupid, it makes me look human. I'm smart enough to understand large tracts of those words and they are nonsense of the first order.

Liberal pastor preaches fundamentalism, in a round about way...

The question is a straight forward one. Why is it accepted to defend one's bigotry against gays by referencing one's religion, while it is no longer accepted as a way to defend slavery or opposition to women's suffrage?

Really, he's arguing against cherry picking. He's arguing that you should take all of the Bible or none of the Bible. That if you no longer defend one type of bigotry with the Bible you should no longer be permitted to defend any type of bigotry with it. Well, I have to admit, that's a pretty good point. Lets either bring back slavery or give everybody equal rights regardless who they love.

Goodness forbid I cite what the Bible says, as having any authority over what the Bible means.

I told an eight year old once not to eat my cookie. He took it as an metaphor and ate the cookie but promised not to remove the sweetness from my life, or make me less rounded.

I understand the urge to craft one's religious faith into something you can show off to your neighbors without that much embarrassment, but if you're going to strip it of enough to pull off that feat, why not dump the husk that remains and embrace truth without duplicity?