Re: Politics and morality

"David V." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Then why don't the religious make an effort to communicate instead of
proselytize? <

I believe they do both. Just like you.

> It means nothing since the presumption that a god exists is baseless. <

Vampires don't exist either, but I still watch Buffy, and often find a
practical secular value in the moral lessons it reinforces.

> Humanism has no gods, no sacredness. <

A little experiment. If I were to say, "Humanists believe in God!", how
would you feel? That is the same feeling that a fundamentalist Christian
would experience if you said "God does not exist!". Both feelings arise from
a sense that certain principles are sacred.

> No god, no sacredness. Find another word with less religious baggage and
you'll get no argument. <

The whole point is that the baggage carries useful information, which ought
not be tossed without first rumaging through it to recover the things of
value.

> You will never understand the secular world if you keep forcing
religiously charged words upon it. <

Did not our secular world produce those religiously charged words? Why did
it do that? A good systems analyst will examine the current system to
determine the needs it was designed to meet, so that any new system can also
meet those needs. Otherwise a new system is likely to fail.