Eh. I think many prominent American strains of Christian fundamentalism are pretty militant. A lot of Christians are very good at selectively ignoring or rationalizing away parts of the Bible. I don’t think specific doctrines are really the main drivers or inhibitors of fanatacism.

Well, and it’s still acceptable. What Ferguson seems to want, though, is for religion to be the norm. And when something becomes the norm and you now need to follow the suit to make sure you get promotions, to make sure your loyalty is not questioned by the authorities, etc. – then it’s not too different from a Vietnamese re-education camp anymore, is it?

C’mon abb1, surely you’re aware that whatever “Christianity” Ferguson might have in mind has little to nothing to do with the actual teachings of Christ.

Garrison Keillor’s monologues are weekly secular lectures, much loved and discussed, profoundly moral, sure of an audience.

Well, in the West we have freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc. So yes, organized religion is acceptable. So are bowling leagues and the Rotary Club.

Or be good at attracting the children of the religious and turning them into secular adults. The mid-west breeds ‘em, the coasts make them their own, kind of thing.

As far as defending yourself against a fanatical groups of believers – I don’t think Christianity is necessarily a good dogma in this respect, with its ‘turn the other cheek’ concept. He should be promoting wahhabism or something.

Well, OTOH, there’s the no sex in heaven thing which Jesus explained to the Saduccees, and the rules on divorce are made more strict. So perhaps not much, but certainly some. As much as you can expect, considering that the gospels aren’t all that big.

Maybe not Plato & Aristotle, but Stoicism (the biggest philosophy in the late Roman Republic and the early Empire) might well have come up with abolitionism, given time…after all, Christianity needed lots of time too!

And as for the (political) equality of rich & poor, granted what you say about the Hebrew prophets, that was a major tenet of Athenian democracy.

I think Feguson’s point is a combination of the above observation together with a conservative view of society as held together by common beliefs of which religion is a most important one. Secular, pluralist societies are not gonna play their proper role in the clash of civilizations. From your perspective and mine, that’s fine, but what if such societies are vulnerable to attack from stronger, more fanatical groups of believers?

There are people prepared to die for their religion, but fewer are prepared to die for the separation of church and state.

The U.S., for good or ill, is different from Western European nations in many, many ways. Where religious observance is to be found on the causal pathway leading to, say, homicide is not clear at all, and looking at unadjusted correlation coefficients is somewhere far away from Godliness. (Or secularism. Whatever floats your boat.)

I think Donald Johnson is on the right track here. Or, I guess I mean that I hold very similar views to what he has expressed here.