The liberal religions need to stand up against the disgusting intolerance of the conservative loons. If this article is correct, that is a good thing.

The opposition to the Vietnam had just turned the corner. She wrote the liner notes which included this line (taken from hazy memory): "He would not, could not, for any reason kill his brother." Let alone hate. I never ecountered an argument to counter that.

Even more hopeful is that information in the article that indicates that conservative religious groups are changing focus to things that we might even be able to work with them on - immigration reform, human trafficking, mental health.

I prefer the hard-right religion positions we commonly see today, because their position is generally pretty straight forward to assault and destroy in debate. It's possible to shame them out of their political positions with their own doctrine.

But even though it means not converting people away from religion, I don't find this concept disturbing, because it takes religiously-backed political ideology off the table, and that's a better world right there.

I can live with that.

It may even make you feel better.

over the liberal/progressive positions outlined in this article?

See, your use of language is so very tellings. Assault and destroy? Do you really think that is an effective approach to trying to work with people that may hold a position that you disagree with? All I think it probably accomplishes is another notch in your gun belt and people that hope they never run into you again.

People are changing on these issues. It's not all black and white, us and them.

Do you think taking religiously backed political ideology that supports GLBT civil rights, social justice, taking care of the most marginalized and peace off the table makes the world a better place.

You don't really have to answer that question. I think that you were clear and that you do.

WOULD prefer. If I were a hard-line ideologue. I hope that changes the tone of your analysis.

(I was pretending to hold a conversation with someone in the background while I typed that.)

I stated that correctly.

From a tactical standpoint, the hard line religious/conservative position is easier to argue against than a softer progressive religious position, if the question on the table is whether religion is real or not.

If I were a hard line ideologue about wanting to win the religion debate, this would be counter-productive to me. But I'm ok with it, because the political aspects are actually the bigger issue to me. (Which is pretty much what I said, so not sure why you are mining out that single sentence.)


"Do you think taking religiously backed political ideology that supports GLBT civil rights, social justice, taking care of the most marginalized and peace off the table makes the world a better place."

That wasn't phrased as a valid question, but no, that's the opposite of what I said. I said I can accept this soft progressive stance even though it is religious in nature, because I am not so invested in winning the religion debate that I would prefer hard-line religious bigotry to continue, just because it makes it easier for me to disassemble my opponent's position.

I said the opposite of what you took that for. (And I did not drop the word 'would' after all.)

"Do you really think that is an effective approach to trying to work with people that may hold a position that you disagree with?"
I have found it effective with the opponents I choose to engage. I would not try it with any/all comers, because yes, a confrontational approach is not always productive with all audiences.

I am not stupid. But thank you for asking.

Thanks for valuing progressive success above wanting religion to look as bad as possible.

element of a major political party

and peace. I am glad.