And you are illustrating exactly the sorts of backwards attitudes that give many religious conservatives a justifiably bad name.
If religious people want to believe in God they are quite free to do so. When they, however attempt to make laws for everybody else based on nothing more than a belief in God, they're going to get questioned. The morons in Tennessee
who are attempting to bring in intelligent design and creationism thru the back door by criticizing the chemical basis of life and evolution are an example of why biblical literalists don't mix well with science and logic, you know that post-Enlightenment stuff. Biblical literalists make claims about the world that are at best untestable and at worst demonstrably untrue. If they wish to step on the playing field of science with that junk, they're gonna get smoked. Again.
First, secular liberals are no different when it comes to their beliefs influencing law. They just don't do it under the banner of religion. Third, there's issues in the conservative cause (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) that can be supported without bringing religion into it. Third, while one shouldn't lump every religious person (including us Mormons) with the outspoken Evengelical types who misread the opening chapters of the Bible involving the creation, the secular science-is-our-god crowd seems to forget that science hasn't answered as many questions, or proved or disproved as many things as they like to think. They seem to forget the "theory" part in the "theory of evolution."
Amazing that you see Trayvon as a "thug and no big loss to society" while the previously arrested Zimmerman is not so described. That's the essence of white skin privilege and is why so many people got so excited by this case in the first place. Probably the original officers felt the same way.
I've already said Zimmerman was overzealous in his community watch, crossed the line by confronting Trayvon, and should be charged with either manslaughter (if not 2nd degree murder). What else do you want?
Ivy League, in a recent post you preached that a person (Mel Gibson) should not not be judged by his worst moments, which included multiple rants with profanity and racially charged language. Yet without equivocation you label Trayvon Martin a "thug," and characterize the loss of his life as inconsequential. You base this on an interpretation of facts that have not been established. Moreover, you make assumptions from allegations to speculate that he would be headed for prison. While you lectured that it was improper to rely on substantiated facts to judge Gibson's character, why do you rely on unproven allegations to assail Trayvon's character and even speculate on inferences drawn from mere allegations to conclude that he would end up in prison.
What makes Gibson different than Martin?
First, I take issue with the word "preach." Second, I said - or at least meant - a person shouldn't be judged
solely on their worst moments. Third, I never said anything about "unsubstantiated facts" in regards to Gibson. I'm well aware of what he has said over the years. And while I don't excuse it, I don't make him out to be the monster others do. Fourth, I probably shouldn't have made the declaration that Trayvon's death is "no big loss to society." However, at this point, I'm pretty convinced that he physically attacked Zimmerman. Which makes him a thug, despite the fact that Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted him in the first place. It seems very unlikely that Zimmerman just got out of his car thinking, "I'm gonna kill this kid."
