[boatbums]

I think some are incapable of hearing any criticism at all (sound like our president?). Once certain words are said the thinking stops and the reacting starts. I could understand the scope of what this article stated quite clearly and it, in NO WAY, should be taken as antagonistic against anyone personally.

It is only particular religious doctrines that are disputed here and they should be allowed to be talked about in context without the ravings of pseudo-offended and pseudo-persecuted individuals who need to grow-up. IMHO

[wmfights]

Once certain words are said the thinking stops and the reacting starts.

It's unfortunate, there are a lot of people with good insights who would be interesting to read if the static was turned down a bit.

I think the role history plays in this case can't be overlooked. If a Christian church emerges after the Reformation it's much easier to stake out the "high ground" because that church didn't exist during the period where it was the norm for a church to be part of the state and exercise power as a state. Liberty and the idea that our rights are God given is really not that old and churches that existed before this belief became the norm are at a disadvantage.