I'm a philosopher & classical liberal. I like Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, William Godwin & Ludwig von Mises.
Martin Luther King wasn't just Christian, he was a pastor.
Are you claiming that MLK was the primary cause behind ending segregation and giving black people the vote?
Or even, one of a few primary causes?
And if so, was he more or less so than Malcolm X, a *Muslim*?
so you're pointing out that Malcom X was also religious? thanks.
Archibishop Desmond Tutu is an archibishop.
And Winston Churchill was an eccentric free-thinker.
alice my thesis was neither of these:
- all Christians are open minded
- no atheists are r0xx0r
rather it is that social progress is possible in an all-Christian society. in other words, Christianity does not need outside help to improve.
and we're talking about present-day Christianity, not the dark ages or prior variety.
the basic point of this is that if, say, a billion muslims were converted to Christianity, this would not be the end of freedom, or a giant disaster for civil rights.
Yeah, Malcolm X was very religious. When did I say that religion was compeltely wrong? Or even that Christianity was completely wrong?
Oh, yeah, *I didn't*.
"the basic point of this is that if, say, a billion muslims were converted to Christianity, this would not be the end of freedom, or a giant disaster for civil rights."
I agree with this, presupposing that there are in fact a billion muslims in the world. Which, considering the pupulation of the world, I would guess to be true.
What gave you the idea that I disagreed with that?
i got the idea when you said you opposed converting Muslims to Christianity for fear of what would happen to civil rights with all those Christians.
i suppose you'll now claim you never said that. i hope you'll be so good remind us what you did say.
No, I opposed converting *the entire world*.
I also think that converting Muslims to Christianity in itself wouldn't be *that* helpful. It would mostly be the influence of Western ideals not borne of Christianity that helped.
I apologize for being so unclear.
"Christianity does not need outside help to improve"
What about the bad parts of it? How does it improve those without ideas from outside?
People can improve by introspection, right?
People can get and test new conjectures from looking at what they already know?
How is this better than learning from other people who have learned new different things than oneself?
I didn't say better, I said possible.
(This is a free speech zone!)