Reply #68: The analogy does not insult me at all

[Meshuga]

That's your assumption and I wonder why you make such assumptions.

What I don't understand is why you compare "Dick and Jane" to Osama Bin Laden? Assuming Dick and Jane are liberal Christians, of course. If Dick and Jane are religious radicals then the comparison makes sense since I understand your concern with making alliances with radical religious groups or religious radicals like Osama Bin Laden.

But if you cannot (or are not willing to) make the distinction between Osama Bin Laden and liberal Christians then I truly don't know what to tell you. I am not insulted and I have no reason to be insulted. I am just baffled.

I am not trying to deliberately change the scope of the argument. If it happened I didn't do it deliberately. All I am trying to say is that I had my own misconceptions about Christianity and I learned to make distinctions from interactions with Christians and reading more about this form of Christianity. From my own point of view, it appears that just by being "liberal Christianity" the group differentiates itself (by default) from other Christian groups. The nature of liberal Christianity is already opposition to these groups and "bad" enough to draw ire from the religious right.

My main point through the many exchanges we are having here (and I repeat again) is the fact that there are distinctions. The issue now is the ability to see them or the willingness to recognize them. I personally think liberal Christians don't need a new label for others to see these distinctions. I see that it could be convenient not to recognize them or try to lump them so there is a reason to attack the boogieman opponent. I don't find it offensive. I just find it a waste of time and wasted opportunity.