Not remotely, no.
OK, but you haven't said why you think Silverman's approach will help reduce religious privilege and Lindsay's won't. That is the key issue here. My piece was an argument for why I think differently.
-
-
Open discourse is the solution to moving antiquated ideologies out of the role of institutional authority. It’s not about eradicatiing spiritual aesthetic. Its fine to understand the pyschology behind motive from a clinical role but religious doctrine is too frail to protect
-
But neither is arguing for protecting religious doctrine. I really am going to leave it here now.
-
It’s in the subtext. I can see it.
-
Well, you couldn't more wrong and there is zero point in arguing against what you think someone else really means rather than what they say.
-
Ok. Sorry.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’ve always had an issue w/ the idea of atheist as a tribal identity & agree w/ your suggestion that the humanist identity has more iterations than that. The struggle against religion for credibility requires directly engaged discourse & shouldn’t be hindered by propriety.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.