Comments on: Andrew Sullivan’s Bigotry http://www.section134.com/2007/07/05/andrew-sullivans-bigoted-argument/ Mormonism and Politics Sat, 02 Jan 2010 04:07:13 +0000 hourly 1 By: Trenton http://www.section134.com/2007/07/05/andrew-sullivans-bigoted-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-5 Trenton Fri, 06 Jul 2007 18:04:58 +0000 http://www.section134.com/2007/07/05/andrew-sullivans-bigoted-argument/#comment-5 You may be right, but that doesn't square in my mind with Sullivan's summary of Card's statement: "any faith is better than no faith in an increasingly atheist world," which then causes Sullivan to ask, "Would he vote for an Islamist over a liberal Christian as well, I wonder?" Liberal religion is still religion, is it not? In Card's mind, I would imagine it is still better than atheism. Card was being conciliatory towards Mohler, trying to find common ground with him. That's where I was going with that. You may be right, but that doesn’t square in my mind with Sullivan’s summary of Card’s statement: “any faith is better than no faith in an increasingly atheist world,” which then causes Sullivan to ask, “Would he vote for an Islamist over a liberal Christian as well, I wonder?”

Liberal religion is still religion, is it not? In Card’s mind, I would imagine it is still better than atheism.

Card was being conciliatory towards Mohler, trying to find common ground with him. That’s where I was going with that.

]]> By: Lynet http://www.section134.com/2007/07/05/andrew-sullivans-bigoted-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-4 Lynet Fri, 06 Jul 2007 17:44:23 +0000 http://www.section134.com/2007/07/05/andrew-sullivans-bigoted-argument/#comment-4 You may have missed the point. I get the impression that Andrew Sullivan considers Card's piece to be arguing that <i>any</i> strong, rigorous religion is better than liberal religion; naturally he wishes to argue against that. I'm not sure whether Card is saying that, but I do know this: Card's piece is <i>definitely</i> bigoted against atheists. So you can hardly call it conciliatory in general. You may have missed the point. I get the impression that Andrew Sullivan considers Card’s piece to be arguing that any strong, rigorous religion is better than liberal religion; naturally he wishes to argue against that.

I’m not sure whether Card is saying that, but I do know this: Card’s piece is definitely bigoted against atheists. So you can hardly call it conciliatory in general.

]]>