Todd wrote:
I did not mean to imply that only Christian religious beliefs
were valid. I do think it is a good thing to bring your
moral values to the arena of ideas, where ever you get them
from.

I am glad to hear you say that. Unfortunately some mean exactly that --
which is why I got so disturbed by the religious questioning of
political candidates in that last election. It appeared to me that a
candidate had little chance to get elected unless the candidate was
willing to profess a strong belief in a Christian God. That is not the
way things should be.

That the majority should be respectful of the minority's rights
goes without saying. Barring one from politics because
of the religious beliefs is a receipt for tyranny.

Yes -- and that is what the founding fathers had in mind. They had too
much recent experience with problems of that kind.

Todd wrote:
I keep thinking about your letter. All of the things you
list above can be traced back to someone's religious values.
Typically the ten commandments. Atheist's values float, so
they do not apply here.

It seems to me that some values are important for a stable society.
Those values have existed for a long time, in societies even before the
Ten Commandments. In those times, pretty much everyone was religious,
so I suppose that many common core values can be said to descend from
religion of some sort.

In other words, I am not convinced that the Ten Commandments (aside from
the monotheistic imperatives) are all that original. For example, while
there are exceptions, most societies found it expedient to prohibit
murder and stealing within the group (outsiders were apt to be another
story, though).

I would want any political candidate to have a firm grasp on a set of
core values that are needed for a stable society; I reject the concept
that he needs to be a professing religious person to have good values.

I am also not trying to convert, by sword or otherwise,
you to my religion, I am trying to convince you in the arena
of ideas, that my "moral" belief is something that you
should share with me. Convince, not force. I want/need
you to join with me in fighting to protect those
who can not protect themselves (abortion). It is my
job to convince you of my point. As it is yours to
disagree with me to pull me over to your point of view.

The cramming my religion down your throat argument is a
distraction to keep us from hearing each other's words.

I like your point on convincing -- to me the proper way to deal with
such controversial issues is to convince the other side, not to
legislate your beliefs.

I am not trying to argue one way or the other about such topics as
abortion and stem cell research. What I *am* trying to point out is
that for many people, their position on such things is a religious
belief -- many people take their positions on those items as a result of
what they believe their religion (or pastor/minister/reverend/...) says
on the subject.

That results in them trying to legislate their religious belief, even
knowing that many honorable and well-meaning folks, and even other
religions, may disagree with them.

One of my worries when people try to legislate their religious beliefs
is that those beliefs are seen as non-negotiable moral absolutes, not
subject to reasoned discourse.

By the way, you write very well.

Thank you.
-T