It has come to my attention that some people do not know

[bloom]

what religion is. Being that this is the religion/theology section - people should consider the full definition and not just 1. a.& b. of a narrow definition (ex. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=56774&mesg_id=56774 ).

I like this esp. myself:

"a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe."

--------------------------------

re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Idiom:
get religion Informal
1. To become religious or devout.
2. To resolve to end one's immoral behavior.
-------------------------------------------------

Encyclopedia

"religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it."


"Some religions are nonrevealed, or “natural,” the result of human inquiry alone. Included among these and sometimes called philosophies of eternity are Buddhist sects (where Buddha is recognized not as a god but as an enlightened leader), Brahmanism, and Taoism and other Chinese metaphysical doctrines."


"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

---------

Other tangents:

Religion and science
"The philosophical approach known as pragmatism, as propounded by the American philosopher William James, has been used to reconcile scientific with religious knowledge. Pragmatism, simplistically, holds that the truth of a set of beliefs can be indicated by its usefulness in helping people cope with a particular context of life. Thus, the fact that scientific beliefs are useful in predicting observations in the physical world can indicate a certain truth for scientific theories; the fact that religious beliefs can be useful in helping people cope with difficult emotions or moral decisions can indicate a certain truth for those beliefs. (For a similar postmodern view, see grand narrative)."


Esotericism and mysticism
"Mysticism, in contrast with philosophy and metaphysics, denies that logic is the most important method of gaining enlightenment. Rather physical disciplines such as yoga, or whirling (in the case of the Sufi dervishes) or the use of Psychoactive drugs such as LSD, lead to higher states of consciousness that logic can never hope to grasp."

-----------

"Explanations for the growth of religion in these areas include disillusionment with the perceived failures of secular western ideologies to provide an ethical and moral framework."***

"Moral framework": Most religions see early childhood education in religion and spirituality as essential moral and spiritual formation, whereby individuals are given a proper grounding in ethics, instilling and internalizing moral discipline.


http://www.answers.com/topic/religion?method=22

***Is it bigoted to point that out? (Some people seem to think so.)

[Klukie]

1. Thanks for this post.

It is needed.

[Proud_Democratt]

52. May I ask why?

You said, "It is needed"


Why is it needed?

[Klukie]

54. Because....

it educates us all.

[Proud_Democratt]

59. That's what they said about LSD back in '70. Both religion

and LSD are unneeded.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Thank you for an informative post

I am amused with the term "whirling" used to describe the practice that is known in the Mevlevi Order of Sufis as "The Turn". I have had the honor of meeting the head of the Mevlevi Order of America, Jelladadin Larus, and have had one lesson in The Turn. It is not necessarily fast, and there is a lot more to it than just spinning around. It takes two years to learn to do it properly, and there is a whole ceremony (called the Sema) around it.

[CarbonDate]

3. Is it bigoted to point out....

...that what some people call "higher states of consciousness" other people call "delusion"?

Here's CarbonDate's just-for-yucks challenge: there surely must be at least one "remote viewer" or psychic on this site. If anybody can tell me what I am wearing and/or what my current hair style is, I will cede that as evidence of psychic abilities. No worries, I'm not impatient. I can wait.

I'll even expand this: tell me one thing about myself that you couldn't know without knowing me or extrapolating from my posts (example, it's clear just by reading my posts that I am an atheist and am in the Air Force. It may not be so clear as to what my internal thoughts are regarding what I did back in February.)

And... go.

[Orrex]

10. I'll try. Just let me fill my scrying pool with the magical fluids

Okay.

You're wearing a propeller beanie, and your hair is in corn rows.

Once when you were young, you licked sap from a pine tree thinking that it was honey.

And you're thinking about how, two months back, you got into a shouting match with that guy on the bus about whether or not you pronounce the "R" in February.

Now do you believe in my superduper psychic abilities?

[Goblinmonger]

11. Oh, Please

Who doesn't know that stuff about CarbonDate? Go for something tough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Your editing is changing the sense that the encylopedia writer gave

When you say 'I like this esp. myself: "a code of behavior ..."' you miss out the beginning of the sentence - and I think the beginning is important, because the three phrases separated by semicolons are finally connected using 'and', not 'or'. So I think the writer is saying a necessary part of a religion is "a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion" (as are the other two). Maybe you are just saying you like the second and third parts better than the first - but it could look as if you are saying a code of behaviour on its own could be a religion. I would disagree with that, and I think the author of the encyclopedia article would too.

[Zenlitened]

7. Cherry-picking text in the name of religion?

I'm shocked!

Good catch. :hi:

Here's the whole entry -- whoops, there's that worship thing again!

religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it.

[mongo]

5. It has come to my attention

that most people use religion as a means to push their beliefs on other people, under the guise of "morality".

[Goblinmonger]

6. ooooooooh, I've been called out on a definitional debate

Haven't had a good one of these since I quit coaching college debate 5 years ago.

I'll be kind. I will let you go first (though you kind of already have). In order to have a good debate on definitions, the first thing we need to do is come to agreement on what standards we will hold for a good definition, i.e. what is it that makes a good definition good and a bad definition bad. You go ahead and tell me what you think the standards should be and then we will hash them out. Then we will get to the actual debate definition.

See, if we don't do this, then we can just each toss out crappy definitions that just serve our purpose (kinda like you did--and you took some out of context which is a no-no), like this one

Marcus Clarke described religion as "an active and general delusion": Civilization Without Delusion (1880)

Now that hardly seems fair, does it.

So go ahead. What makes a good definition? You might want to google some linguists if you have never done this before...I know I will/have.

On edit: see the problem with your favorite definition (a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions) is that it could be anything. The platform of the Democratic Party could be a religion by that definition and that is certainly a load of crap. See, standards like that.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

8. Oh my God1

Religion, or belief in a God, is an imaginary friend for grownups. Anyone who has done even a rudimentary study of the evolution of religion can tell you that, though belief in a "higher power" helps people deal with the uncertainty of the universe, it's all bullshit. There is no God, there is no Krishna, there is no guy in the sky watching over us.

This does NOT mean that those of us who reject the idea of a supreme being who determines moral codes are amoral. On the contrary, I believe that we inhabit this planet and if we don't take care of it, and each other, we are doomed. A code of planetary ethics and moral responsibility toward each other is the only thing that will keep us existing. We cannot continue to pollute and devastate this planet and hope to survive. The moral imperative here is that we are all in this together. Weather you believe in some God or not is irrelevant. We, the people, are very close to making this planet uninhabitable for our kind. We either fix it or die. The earth doesn't care either way.

[Goblinmonger]

9. Are you talking to me?

Because if you are, you have GROSSLY misinterpreted who I am and what I stand for. Let me make it clear in case you haven't read my stuff (did you read the link bloom gave to my discussion of religion and rationality--that would have given you a hint as to where I am coming from):

1. I am an atheist. I agree with your post 100%
2. My post above was in response to being called out on the definition of religion I used.
3. My post is also a lot for my amusement at debating with someone. I like it. I really like definitional debates. The definitions bloom posted are crap. Don't tell her, but I'm getting to why they are crap--just wait.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

12. Not at all

I was just interjecting my thoughts on the subject.

Jesus, don't be so defensive (this is a joke, sarcasim on!!!)I agree with you too. Unfortunatly, sites like this don't transmit humor very well. Lighten up! Some of us agree with you, but it is hard to make that point online! If we were face to face, we would get along very well.

[beam me up scottie]

13. You'll have to forgive us.

We've been defending ourselves for so long we don't always recognize friendlies.

Interject at will, even if you don't agree with us, that's the beauty of DU.

But since you do, agree with us, that is, welcome to the club!

Here's your rubber chicken:

[Goblinmonger]

27. Mea culpa

You responded to me and I thought you didn't get it. I apologize. A little trigger happy given the attitude here. Not always reading posts by people I don't recognize with an eye for sarcasm (though I think it is a sad commentary on this forum if I can't realize when someone agrees with me).

I'm quite sure we would get along VERY well. I'll keep an eye out.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

48. Oh my God!

I got a rubber chicken! Cool!

[NMMNG]

14. So disingenuous of you

You say: Being that this is the religion/theology section - people should consider the full definition and not just 1. a.& b. of a narrow definition

And then you edit your definition!


You state: I like this esp. myself:

"a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe."

But the full definition is actually:

a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it.


I wonder what that was all about. :eyes:

[trotsky]

19. NICE catch, Buffy.

"Do as I say, not as I do." There's a word for that, isn't there? Starts with H?

[bloom]

15. The people who insist on telling others what their definition

of religion is - as if they are right and everyone else is wrong - as if there are not religions that do not involve supernatural ideas - should go reread some of the debate over the definition of atheism.

Seems to be quite a few (of the same) people who had quite a problem with others defining atheism for them. I don't see a difference.


I see an awful of people who define religion and Christianity how they want to define it - often exaggerating or totally making stuff up - just so they can argue against it. Strawman arguments.

[Goblinmonger]

16. Here are my problems with this thread

1. You call me out on a definintional debate. I proceed with the debate, and give you the opportunity to start setting the standards for what is religion. (We are not talking about defining YOUR religion, or what religion is to SOMEONE else on here personally; we are talking about defining religion AS A WHOLE.) You completely ignore the debate that you started.

2. Don't preach to me about strawmen. I am not making one. I will gladly get to an acceptable definition for BOTH of us. YOU are the one who took stuff out of context, not I.

If you wish to continue the debate on the definition (a debate that you started by referring to me DIRECTLY), I will be glad to do so. If not, I hope this thread sinks like a rock because it was not REALLY an attempt on your part to get to an understanding but rather another attempt at you to discredit the vocal atheists here one more time.

[bloom]

17. I don't see where

any of your group wants to reach any understanding. You are all about not understanding. We have nothing to discuss.


I posted a much fuller definition than you did. That is that as far as I'm concerned.

[trotsky]

20. You posted a fuller definition, then chopped it down to the part you liked

My goodness this is just a comedy at this point.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Thank you! Copied and saved.

"I don't see where
any of your group wants to reach any understanding. You are all about not understanding. We have nothing to discuss."

With nothing to discuss, we can safely assume that your reason for using this forum to call out atheists is nothing more than an attempt to disrupt, right? ;)

[Goblinmonger]

24. Hey, stop it.

YOU called me out on a debate about definitions. I didn't bitch about it. I didn't rag on you. I took the next step in a definitional debate and asked for your standards. You have yet to answer. I am still ready to debate the definition.

You posted a fuller definition that YOU TOOK OUT OF CONTEXT. YOU CHANGED THE MEANING OF THE DEFINITION. Holy shit, for someone who posts about morals all the time, you sure shove those out the door when it comes to your argumentation.

Do you not get it. We need to agree about standards for the definition. Otherwise you post a definition, then I post a definition by Falwell as to what religion is and we get nowhere.

I'll tell you what. I'll give you my standards above for a definition. I hope you respond and actually see this debate through in a civil manner.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Will you reply to post #4?

I'm not part of goblinmonger's group (I don't know who is, to be honest). I can't understand your point in post #15 - you, after all, gave your own definition of 'religion' too, in the OP.

But if we do want generally accepted definitions, I'll post here the Chambers English Dictionary one (a respected British dictionary, not, as far as I know, available online), as another one to consider:

belief in, recognition of, or an awakened sense of, a higher unseen controlling power or powers, with the emotion and morality connected therewith: rites or worship: any system of such belief of worship: devoted fidelity: monastic life: a monastic order: Protestantism (obs.).

The problem I have with your definition in the OP is that not only does it include most philosophies, but it could also apply to a military code of conduct, with a free-ish interpretation of "their universe". There's no concept of the person acknowledging their adherence to the religion; and I really think the normal use of 'religion' (ignoring the metaphorical "football is his religion" use) involves beliefs in forces outside the natural world - note the difference the Columbia Encyclopedia, from which you drew you references, makes between religious and philosophical Taoism, or consider the Buddhist belief in reincarnation. Now, Buddhism (or most of it) may not contain an explicit 'higher power', so the Chambers definition may not be perfect, but I think the idea of continual rebirth until the being achieves a non-human standard is very close to using a 'higher power'.

[Goblinmonger]

46. You know what

Maybe I don't want you to be part of my group, grumpy atheist avatar person. Git. :P Honestly, I have no idea who "my group" is either. I hope we're cool.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Well, I didn't want to reply immediately

in case it meant I was part of your 'group'. Now it's obvious bloom won't reply to me anyway, I'll say it: Yeah, we're cool. :hippie:

[Strong Atheist]

60. By "your group"

I assume you mean us atheists....:rofl:

[bloom]

18. delete

double post

[beam me up scottie]

21. And we have a winner!!!

Granted the other party picked up her toys and went home crying before you could play, but you're still the victor.

:evilgrin:

[bloom]

23. I posted this for the people who are open

to what others think. And for people like the first two people who responded who would like for others to consider a broader definition.

[Goblinmonger]

25. "Broader"?

You have to be kidding me. YOU CHOPPED DOWN THE DEFINITION AND CHANGED THE MEANING. What is even more ironic is that WITH THE FULL TEXT, your definition is pretty much just a long-winded version of MY DEFINITION.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Here are my standards

1. A definition should be inclusive and exclusive. That is, it should make clear what is part of the definition and what isn't. In other words, almost everything should not be able to be included as part of a definition--otherwise the definition is meaningless.

2. A definition, for the purposes of us here in a specific religion/theology forum, should be from an expert. This expert, though, should be a general expert in the area and not a specific advocate for a specific religion. Just as it would be bad to use a definition by an atheist that calls religion a delusion, it is equally bad to use a definition from a mystic that focuses on those practices as being at the heart of what religion is. I would offer that philosophy gives us the best "neutral" determiner of this type of definition.

With these two standards in mind, I offer the following definition from The Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion, p 647:

Religion - from the Latin 'religare' (‘to bind fast') - typically the term refers to an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and accept a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality.

If you disagree with that, please feel free to offer different standards, show how the definition doesn't meet my standards, and/or offer a different definition.

I think you can see that I am being quite civil in this discussion.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mongo]

29. When you can't argue with the message

Attack the messenger. Nice.

[bloom]

30. I think it's reasonable to turn the tables

It's the same thing. And they have been asking for it.

I think my post is justified under the circumstances. And I'm just quoting them. They do that sort of thing all the time.


They don't want to argue their definition - they just want to insult religious people. So do you - apparently.

[Goblinmonger]

33. Hey. Over Here. OOOH. Me

I want to argue the definition. I have tried several times to do so.

If you won't argue the definition, then will you please tell me why you started a thread where you CALLED ME OUT as the point of the OP?

[WhollyHeretic]

40. Sorry but this is a private thread

Move along!

Nothing to see here

[Goblinmonger]

41. Sorry

Got a little whacky there. I must respect bloom's authoritay.

[Goblinmonger]

32. Three things

1. Are you ever going to answer my attempts to continue this debate about definitions in a civilized manner or are you just going to continue to bitch about people not wanting understanding (when I have posted twice in this thread in an effort to increase understanding)?

2. Why give us a link to a thread with 200+ posts in it? Why not link to the specific message?

3. "People who hate religion..." That's why I have offered a definition from a philosophy/religion dictionary. Of course, you won't answer my posts that are an attempt at understanding.

[Evoman]

31. Lets see if this helps you understand what your doing.

This is the dictionary definition of a BARBARIAN

1.Orig., an alien or foreigner; in the ancient world applied esp. to non-greeks, non-Romans, or non-Christians. 2. A member of a people or group with a civilization regarded as primitive, savage, etc. 3.a) A person who lacks culture b) a coarse of unmannerly person; boor.

Now...lets see. My girlfriend called me a barbarian yesterday...so I think a barbarian is...

A MEMBER OF A PEOPLE OR GROUP WITH A CIVILIZATON.

Lol...see what I did there. I took the definition I liked, completely out of context, as to make the word Barbarian completely useless in dialog. Not only is was I did dumb, it reeked of intellectual dishonesty.

[bloom]

34. I also like sweetheart's use of the word...

What is religion? ..and why should it be separate from the state?

The word "religion" comes from latin roots that mean "to tie, fasten; to bind"
as one is bound in faith to one's beliefs.

The dictionary can tell you that religion is a set of beliefs about the
cause, nature and purpose of the universe, or a fundamental set of
beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons. In
this regard, ANY beliefs you might have, from the substantiality of the
scientific method, to the belief that kissing your boss's behind will
make you free, are all frames of religion.

The constitution itself, and the mythology behind it, is a sort of religion.
In this regard, all persons ascribe to some sort of
fundamentalist beliefs that "tie or bind them"; be they the belief in
language and free speech; the universality of human rights; the original
state of natural law, or that the earth has a molten core.

The state then, is a cult of religion, with a set of binding beliefs,
heirarchies and even heresy, such as exposing ones body in public,
something that is so wholly natural, that it is a crime to not cover
up your sex, as the religion of perverts and sexual dirtiness has
been elevated.

So already, there IS a state religion, in contrast to the
principal "of freedom of religion". Yet that is not genuine. A hindu
who smokes hash is a heretic. A Jain who walks naked is a heretic,
and the cult will arrest them and torture them until they are
cleansed of their heresy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3572866&mesg_id=3572866

[SidDithers]

35. Why do you keep replying to yourself...

instead of Goblinmonger, who has twice responded politely and directly to your OP?

Sid

[Goblinmonger]

37. Well, here is my theory.

She had to take me off of ignore in order to copy the link to my message. She has since put me back on ignore (I am not able to send her PMs--not that I was actually going to stalk her through PMs, but I just tried one as a test).

Interesting, that, isn't it. She can take me off ignore to call me out but not to actually have a dialogue.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

42. There ARE two groups of atheists.

Atheists and athIEsts.

You belong to the latter.

And speaking of "harassing atheists", isn't that what you've been doing to us for several weeks now?

No need to answer, it's obvious from your replies what your intention is.

[SidDithers]

43. What'd I miss?....What'd I miss?...

:evilgrin:

Sid

[beam me up scottie]

47. Same old

atheists are big meanies drivel.

Now that we're in the digital age, I'd almost forgotten what a broken record sounds like.

[Goblinmonger]

36. So

since you won't reply to my posts, I'll post here.

I don't think this meet my standards, specifically the "expert" standard. Perhaps you would like to offer your own standards so we could discuss them.

It also doesn't meet the inclusion/exclusion standard. ANYTHING fits into that definition.

Computers
Vegetarians
Driving Regulations
City Ordinances
Recipe Books

Are all of those religions? I don't think so. As a result, I think that definition is flawed. PLEASE feel free to respond and continue the debate.

[Goblinmonger]

38. Hey, bloom

thanks for calling me out and then refusing to answer me and putting me on ignore.

Strong moral center, that.

[arwalden]

45. Oh Good Grief!

Does it ever end?

[OffWithTheirHeads]

49. No, it never ends

but do you really want it too?

you will never convince people who need a God that there is no God. You will never convince people who do not need a God that one exists. So why bother?

[beam me up scottie]

50. I think Allen was referring to

the op's latest cheap shot at DU atheists.

And while I can't answer for him, I'm fairly certain he would like it very much if the obsessive baiting would stop.

And he's not alone.

AthIEsts are to atheists what Log Cabin Republicans are to homosexuals.

[arwalden]

51. Can I Just Convince Them To Get Out Of Politics And Out Of My Bedroom?

<< you will never convince people who need a God that there is no God. You will never convince people who do not need a God that one exists. So why bother? >>

That's really not my goal at all.

I'd settle for having the believers CEASE their endless crusade that promoting a climate of hostility and hatred to non-believers and intolerance and violence towards homosexuals?

Wouldn't that be nice?

[Proud_Democratt]

53. THAT would be nice...

When an Atheist defends their outlook, they claim it as hostility.

[bluesbassman]

55. I really enjoy these threads.

First let me say that I am; 1. A believer in The Judeo/Christian concept of God; 2. A Liberal in my social science thinking; 3. A newcomer to the Religion/Theology forum. What has caused me to continue visiting and participating in this forum is the exchange of ideas. As a Liberal, by definition I am open minded to new and differing ideas. I find that by being open minded to what others believe and the rationale they offer to validate their views, it offers me an opportunity for introspection of my own beliefs and views. Some things are never open for change, (like the fact that I would never vote republican) but in areas that are beyond my total comprehension I feel being able to contemplate a differing viewpoint can only cause me to strengthen my original belief or alter it based on new and compelling information.

To my Atheist Brothers and Sisters, I welcome your views as fellow human beings who endeavor to understand our place, function and purpose here on this plane. For future reference, if I ever submit a post that you take as an effort to "convert" you, or if you perceive it as a knock on your beliefs or convictions, please accept my apology. My intention is to enter the debate and express my understanding of the subject and in turn benefit from yours.

Sorry if this post was a little off topic, but as there have been some rather "lively" discussions in this forum over the past few weeks, I wanted to express my feelings about why I come here, and why I think this is a beneficial forum.

[Random_Australian]

56. Why thankyou, most kind. As the first responding athiest, I'd like

to say that sounds like a very helpful and practical thing to start your foray into R/T with.

I'll note that sometimes each side appears to sound to the other as if it were proselytising, when not that is not the case. I suspect that some religious folks have attempted conversion. I know for certain that that last judgement is tainted by at least out-group homogeneity bias.

meh.

There are R/T pledges down the page and in page two. They make for good reading.

[bluesbassman]

57. Your welcome R_A

There is some really great insight here, on all sides of the debate. It's a bit unfortunate though, that some seem to feel that attacking the personal integrity or intelligence of another strengthens their case. That's too bad, as I think it might tend to turn people away who might otherwise become positive contributors to the forum.

Here's to continued constructive discussions!

bluesbassman

[Strong Atheist]

61. Fair enough! nt.