Six Reasons We Can't Change the Future Without Progressive Religion

[skepticscott]

55. Well, if you're really interested in showing respect

You might start by answering the questions I actually asked instead of different ones.

I think religion and politics are a toxic mix. Duh. Not what I asked.

I think religion and government is fatal to both. Duh. Not what I asked.

However, like many atheists and others surely recognize, casting religion out of culture would take a significant cultural change which could take generations. Duh. But I suggested no such thing as casting religion totally out of culture, so why in the world would you inject that notion, if not as another deflection?

Here's what I asked:

Is it useful to inject as much religion into political and social movements as possible? Not into politics of the kind practiced in the halls of government, as you tried to imply, but into the kind of political and social movements that the author of the OP specifically cites (in direct contradiction of your claim of a non-sequitir). Yes or no?

Is it useful to imply that those without religion can't possibly achieve as much in the realm of social progress as religionists? Yes or no?

The author of the OP states quite clearly and in multiple places that religion is essential for the success of progressive political and social movements, but offers up no such credit for non-belief, clearly implying that a political movement without religion will by necessity be less effective than one in which religion is a factor (again putting the lie to your claims of a non-sequitir).

So have at it. Show me your respect by not avoiding my questions yet again. And by not treating me as if I can't see through transparent dodges.