🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <eharbin.725547983@convex.convex.com>, eharbin@convex.com (Edward Harbin) writes:
> In <1992Dec27.235003.4413@rosevax.rosemount.com> grante@aquarius.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
[..]
> On the other hand, in what non-Christian country would you choose to live?
> This century has tried several experiments in explicitly anti-religious
> statecraft - and the body count has been stupendous. In the enlightened regimes
> of Hitler and Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot you have exemplars of what you seek;
> and aren't you proud? Probably not, for it's unlikely that you hold the
> non-religious to the same standards you reserve for the religious, or identify
> yourself with the fruits of that point of view.
The Crusades, the Inquisition?  Maybe we learned something in the process, but
those activities were some very anti-specific-religion doings. How about the Ku
KluxKlan, and the Aryan Christian Nation?  Rather religious statecraft I would
say.
> It was in Christian societies that both modern science 
Based on work in China, Arabia, Greece, etc.
> and 
> liberal democracy evolved. This was not accidental. 
Liberal theology is not well liked by the powers  that be in the churches,
because it asks to overthrow the establishment.  It may have developed under
the freedom, but please provide some evidence that it is supported by the
modern day religious establishments.

> Nor is it accidental that
> wherever you find human suffering, Christians are in the forefront with aid
> aid and comfort. The Christian ethos has much of which to be proud.

Like Pat Buchanan declaring war on "liberals" at the Republican convention
(whoops - sorry, he couldn't be a "real" Christian.)
> 

George Kambic
sd