definitely would consider myself a non-believer. But I can see that. Let's just say that personally, at this point in my life, I have no need or desire for it nor does it appeal to me intellectually as I consider it generally indefensible intellectually. I could say that I admire Mr. Jefferson's his Deism, but I also think it is a rationalization to say that you believe in God but don't think he intervenes. What is his purpose then?

What I definitely am opposed to is the ignorance that fundamentalism appears to cultivate. Worse, what I see is that the beliefs espoused by Evangelicals in our country are not only morally opposed to the teachings of Christ whom they claim to revere, but they are also in opposition to our tradition of secular government. It is inherently undemocratic to claim to govern by God's law because your governance then becomes unquestionable. (How can you question God?) Strict religious neutrality with unfettered religious freedom is one of the key tenants of the United States. This is not to say that religion has no place. Certainly Martin Luther King would be considered religious and the civil rights movement divinely inspired from his point of view. I simply think it was the right thing to do.

So, to avoid the criticism of religion generally, I prefer to adopt Andrew Sullivan's term for political Christians who would impost their version of Christianity through governmental power; Christianists. If I wanted to live in a theocracy there are plenty to choose from. I don't want it happening here.
[Post edited by Seattle .Hoo at 11/13/2017 5:34PM]