That includes in politics as well as religion or non-religion.

but in my head I've started calling some of them here "Single Issue Liberals" because no matter what the thread topic, they are there to post their single-issue in reference to the OP.

members, that I should be banned from the website because I have tried to correct misinformation against religions that appears to come from bigotry, especially about Catholics, and not real concern. I personally bow to no ones' gods except my own and I support no religious institutions. However, I will always defend any one unjustly accused of some affront if it's not true.

Some however are not willing to listen and will use any excuse to bash the DU religious.

Your analogy to the Democratic Party is a good one, especially when it comes to what the institution was, rather than what it is.

You and I are both Texans. We know that 50 years ago the Texas Democratic Party in this state was entrenched, conservative, deeply corrupt and not infrequently violent. South Texas was ruled by the Democratic patron system, an essentially feudal structure as bad as anything in the Deep South. War on Poverty funds went into the coffers of men who were already millionaires. Prospective opposition candidates were beaten on the street in broad daylight; sometimes their properties were burned. One man's printing press was confiscated by sherriff's deputies. It wasn't until the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts in the 60's that the Party began to change.

That's our history. Should we disavow the Democratic Party now because of what it was, or shall we hold to it because of what it now is?

The answer's pretty clear, isn't it?

There's a a few posters who refuses to give religion any credit for any social change that could be accomplished without religion - in other words in order for religion to take credit for any social change or benefit it has to be something that only religion could possibly do.

Anything negative a religion does, on the other hand, is a unique feature of that religion, and proof that it should be abandoned by decent people. This is an interesting version of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

That said, the more reasonable argument is simply that a religion that relies on supernatural authority, well that supernatural authority can change it's mind and since you can't argue with it logically you are trapped. In other words, today I believe that God wants me to be kind and gentle, but tomorrow I might believe God wants me to go around kicking dogs. That I can understand; I don't agree with the argument, but at least it doesn't seem crafted to screw religions either way.

Bryant