"The Requirement"

ziggy wrote:Whether the native population was killed more by forced labor in the mines- forced at sword point to produce gold that didn't exist as in the Bahamas under Columbus-, or by mass murder out of frustration and envy as in Virginia in by about 1620, or by diseases imported by their conquerers, is of little social difference. In that regard, diseases were convenient to the conquerors' purpose of acquiring the resources of the natives. Each native that died of disease was one less that their conquerors' did not have to expend the energy to kill by the sword.

Such tripe, ......... unbelievable, ....... if it wasn't coming from a WV'ian.

Ziggy, you are delusional, ........ and in need of professional assistance before you really "fall off your rocker" and do something drastic to physically "vent" your hate upon innocent people.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

It depends on your definition of "religion." Jesus Christ and my faith in Him have certainly not only given me eternal life but I am truly a different creature than I was before becoming a Christian. I can tell you that I am more pleasant, less angry, more charitable towards others, and much more honest than I was before. I also truly love other people, desiring their good, and that was not something that would have described me before becoming a Christian.

Beyond my own personal experience, however, consider how many hospitals have been built by Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists in the United States, and by Catholics and Hindus in India. Missionaries have brought not only food but medical care to people living in horrible circumstances. Street children in Uganda are being fed and clothed by evangelical Christians, and hungry and cold people in Chicago are being fed and sheltered by the Pacific Garden Mission (and no, Zig, they do not need to be Christians to be fed, although they do hear the Gospel).

How many hospitals have been set up by the ethical humanists? Any atheist "missions" feeding people in Africa in the name of "ethical atheism?"

Zig my man, you implied the christian church has never done any good and Mike shot that out pretty quick.

Why are you now 'dodging' his question?

SheikBen wrote:How many hospitals have been set up by the ethical humanists? Any atheist "missions" feeding people in Africa in the name of "ethical atheism?"

1- How about Johns Hopkins Hospital? Hopkins was a Quaker- and certainly more of a humanist than supernatural religionist.

2- The University of Virginia was founded by religious skeptic and Unitarian Thomas Jefferson as a secular university, with no religious affiliation or denominational identity. Its medical school and hospital are recognized as among the top 10 in the nation.

3- Cleveland Clinic founder George Washington Crile, although both his parents were English Lutherans, after reading Paine, Ingersoll, and Voltaire in his college years, became a lifelong atheist, devoted to the concept of intellectual freedom.

4- "Liberal Christian" Albert Schweitzer, who eschewed doctrinal Christianity, became a medical missionary in Africa.

You suggestion that only supernatural religionists have set up and operated hospitals and other institutions of public knowledge and public service is baseless.

http://www.americanatheist.org/aut03/T1/ittner.html

And for an avowed atheist's answer to you question, and other about the contributions of secularists, humanists and other free thinkers:

One hundred years after Christ had died suppose some one had asked a Christian, What hospitals have you built? What asylums have you founded? They would have said "None." Suppose three hundred years after the death of Christ the same questions had been asked the Christian, he would have said "None, not one." Two hundred years more and the answer would have been the same. And at that time the Christian could have told the questioner that the Mohammedans had built asylums before the Christians. He could also have told him that there had been orphan asylums in China for hundreds and hundreds of years, hospitals in India, and hospitals for the sick at Athens.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/inginfid.htm .

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Whether the native population was killed more by forced labor in the mines- forced at sword point to produce gold that didn't exist as in the Bahamas under Columbus-, or by mass murder out of frustration and envy as in Virginia in by about 1620, or by diseases imported by their conquerers, is of little social difference. In that regard, diseases were convenient to the conquerors' purpose of acquiring the resources of the natives. Each native that died of disease was one less that their conquerors' did not have to expend the energy to kill by the sword.

Such tripe, ......... unbelievable, ....... if it wasn't coming from a WV'ian.

Ziggy, you are delusional, ........ and in need of professional assistance before you really "fall off your rocker" and do something drastic to physically "vent" your hate upon innocent people.

Sam, if all you know about Christopher Columbus and his voyages to the western hemisphere to procure riches for the Spanish Catholic throne is what you read or otherwise learned in 4th grade, then your knowledge is very limited, young man, very limited.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:Whether the native population was killed more by forced labor in the mines- forced at sword point to produce gold that didn't exist as in the Bahamas under Columbus-, or by mass murder out of frustration and envy as in Virginia in by about 1620, or by diseases imported by their conquerers, is of little social difference. In that regard, diseases were convenient to the conquerors' purpose of acquiring the resources of the natives. Each native that died of disease was one less that their conquerors' did not have to expend the energy to kill by the sword.

Such tripe, ......... unbelievable, ....... if it wasn't coming from a WV'ian.

Ziggy, you are delusional, ........ and in need of professional assistance before you really "fall off your rocker" and do something drastic to physically "vent" your hate upon innocent people.

Sam, if all you know about Christopher Columbus and his voyages to the western hemisphere to procure riches for the Spanish Catholic throne is what you read or otherwise learned in 4th grade, then your knowledge is very limited, young man, very limited.

Ziggy, as most any idiot except one can see, ......... that claim was made by you, ...... not me.

What did you do, Zigster, ...... a quick "read-up" on Columbus ........ and decided it best that you attempt to attribute your stupid assed statements to me?

Figured out that Columbus didn't force any natives to "dig for gold in the Bahamas", ....... didn't you.

On 12 October 1492, Christopher Columbus made his first landfall in the Western Hemisphere in the Bahamas. He encountered Arawak Indians and exchanged gifts with them. They were of the Lucayan tribe, and some traveled with Columbus in his return to Europe.

Spanish slave traders later captured native Lucayan Indians to work in gold mines in Hispaniola, and within 25 years, all Lucayans perished.

Zig, did you figure out the difference between the Bahamas and the Antilles? If I thought it was possible that you were capable of "reading a map", I would tell you to "click on" this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CaribbeanIslands.png



Sue the School Board, Ziggy, ......... sue the School Board.

.

Zig,

Atheism is evident in only one of your examples, and it was not in the name of atheism that the Cleveland Clinic was founded. You would surely bristle if I made the contention that a Muslim doctor necessarily practiced in the name of Allah (unless he opened up a hospital named Muhammad and dedicated it to Allah--like the Methodists and Baptists and Catholics and Hindus have).



Was the Clinic founded out of atheism's moral code or did it happen to be founded by an atheist? I also note that you (or the atheists you are citing) are quick to link "intellectual freedom" with atheism. I find zero tolerance for free thinking in the so-called "intellectually free" post-Christian academic setting. There are even campus "speech codes" that will allow the tolerant to expel the intolerant for thinking the wrong things and then saying them out loud.

As for the Quakers, I think you lumping them in with atheists is bizarre. PERHAPS atheism can be reconciled with belief in the inner light, but surely that would be the very, very minority position.

So the atheists were able to call up a hospital founded by a Quaker, a liberal Christian, a Unitarian, and one atheist. Zig, are you shrooming? THAT's an argument? Three religious individuals (while surely not orthodox--but then again, we're not talking orthodoxy we are talking the role of religion) and one atheist who valued "intellectual freedom" (as if Christians are against it?) Note Zig that in this most fervently Christian country in the world you have more freedom to state your mind peacefully than the great majority of other nations.

SheikBen wrote:Note Zig that in this most fervently Christian country in the world you have more freedom to state your mind peacefully than the great majority of other nations.

Zig loves to vent his anger by railing against and badmouthing the very government and society that permits him to do said.

And that is because he doesn't understand the "actions" that are required and mandatory for such a government and/or society to insure his "rights" to do said, ....... and, ..... he doesn't understand that if his government and/or society did as he wants them to do ............. then he would lose his "rights" to do what he does.

cheers

SheikBen wrote:As for the Quakers, I think you lumping them in with atheists is bizarre. PERHAPS atheism can be reconciled with belief in the inner light, but surely that would be the very, very minority position.

No, I believe that would be the majority atheist position. "God", if it be anywhere, is both within and beyond the innards and the psyches of living creatures. And as you said about "religion", that depends on one's definition of "God".

So the atheists were able to call up a hospital founded by a Quaker, a liberal Christian, a Unitarian, and one atheist. Zig, are you shrooming? THAT's an argument?

I was not trying to make an argument. I was just citing a few among hundreds of examples in answer to your question.

Three religious individuals (while surely not orthodox--but then again, we're not talking orthodoxy we are talking the role of religion) and one atheist who valued "intellectual freedom" (as if Christians are against it?).

As you said earlier, that depends on your definition of "religious". I had challenged you on the value, or the good, of supernatural religion. What evidence is there that Jefferson, Hopkins or Schweitzer were anything other than absolute natural spiritualists rather than supernatural religionists?

Christrians evangelicals are against intellectual freedom- for all but those already indoctrinated in the propaganda. For them the search for truth ends upon having "drank the kool-aid" of the Biblical fables of creation and of the supernaturality of all things natural.

Note Zig that in this most fervently Christian country in the world you have more freedom to state your mind peacefully than the great majority of other nations.

Many of your brother "Christians" contend that America is one of the most debauched and atheistic countries in the world. What do you know that they don't?

SamCogar wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Note Zig that in this most fervently Christian country in the world you have more freedom to state your mind peacefully than the great majority of other nations.

Zig loves to vent his anger by railing against and badmouthing the very government and society that permits him to do said.

And that is because he doesn't understand the "actions" that are required and mandatory for such a government and/or society to insure his "rights" to do said, ....... and, ..... he doesn't understand that if his government and/or society did as he wants them to do ............. then he would lose his "rights" to do what he does.

cheers

The "actions" that brought the American Revolution and the Constitutional "rights" you and I practice were "actions" both encouraged and largely carried out by doubters, skeptics and outright heretics of supernatural religions.

SamCogar wrote:Sue the School Board, Ziggy, ......... sue the School Board. .

Nah. That would be but one more frivilous lawsuit clogging the Courts.

That you reduce yourself to grandstanding and bodascious whininess about the ignorance of Ziggy is your problem, not mine.

SheikBen wrote:Zig,

Atheism is evident in only one of your examples, and it was not in the name of atheism that the Cleveland Clinic was founded. You would surely bristle if I made the contention that a Muslim doctor necessarily practiced in the name of Allah (unless he opened up a hospital named Muhammad and dedicated it to Allah--like the Methodists and Baptists and Catholics and Hindus have).

And it's not in the name of God, nor in tribute to God, that the hospitals you cite were founded. Most hospitals, universities, libraries (i.e.- Carnegie) etc. are founded for the purposes of human health and human knowledge- not as edifices to some god or other.

I would suggest that it is positivist humanitariansim that is the primary purpose for which such institutions are founded, the linkage to both secular and religious founding individuals and entities notwithstanding.

Ziggy,

Your Quaker argument does not even come close. I assume that you know some Quakers who would take the moniker of atheist, and yet the Religious Society of Friends would say that everyone has an inner light that comes from God's Spirit, and is thus a Divine presence. You could call that pantheism, perhaps, but certainly not atheism.

http://www.quaker.org/friends.html

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Note Zig that in this most fervently Christian country in the world you have more freedom to state your mind peacefully than the great majority of other nations.

Zig loves to vent his anger by railing against and badmouthing the very government and society that permits him to do said.

And that is because he doesn't understand the "actions" that are required and mandatory for such a government and/or society to insure his "rights" to do said, ....... and, ..... he doesn't understand that if his government and/or society did as he wants them to do ............. then he would lose his "rights" to do what he does.

cheers

The "actions" that brought the American Revolution and the Constitutional "rights" you and I practice were "actions" both encouraged and largely carried out by doubters, skeptics and outright heretics of supernatural religions.

And so were the "actions" that brought about and/or involved our participation in the War of 1812, ... the Civil War, ... WWI, ... WWII, ... the Korean War, ... the War on Poverty, ... the Viet Nam War, ... the War on Drugs, ... the Desert Storm War, ... the War on Terrorism .... and the Iraq War.

So, what was your reason for posting that piffling bit of useless information?

What next, ....... ya gonna tell us about the "actions" of our elected politicians, ...... or what?



.

ziggy wrote:And it's not in the name of God, nor in tribute to God, that the hospitals you cite were founded. Most hospitals, universities, libraries (i.e.- Carnegie) etc. are founded for the purposes of human health and human knowledge- not as edifices to some god or other.

I would suggest that it is positivist humanitariansim that is the primary purpose for which such institutions are founded, the linkage to both secular and religious founding individuals and entities notwithstanding.

HAH, ....... and I suppose you also believe the same for all things "named" for Bob Byrd.



.

ziggy wrote:

SamCogar wrote:Sue the School Board, Ziggy, ......... sue the School Board. .

Nah. That would be but one more frivilous lawsuit clogging the Courts.

That you reduce yourself to grandstanding and bodascious whininess about the ignorance of Ziggy is your problem, not mine.

Well, I figured that, .......... that you would blame me for your ignorance.

It never has been, ....... or ever will be, ........... any fault of Ziggy's, ......... RIGHT?



.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Your Quaker argument does not even come close. I assume that you know some Quakers who would take the moniker of atheist, and yet the Religious Society of Friends would say that everyone has an inner light that comes from God's Spirit, and is thus a Divine presence. You could call that pantheism, perhaps, but certainly not atheism.

SheikBen, the question was about the contribution, the good, of supernatural religion. There is nothing supernatural about the inner light, about the spirit of the natural god within us- "Nature's God" in Jefferson's words. You might call that a divine presence. And so the meaning of that would depend on the definition of "divine", and therefore of "God" or "god".

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:And it's not in the name of God, nor in tribute to God, that the hospitals you cite were founded. Most hospitals, universities, libraries (i.e.- Carnegie) etc. are founded for the purposes of human health and human knowledge- not as edifices to some god or other.

I would suggest that it is positivist humanitariansim that is the primary purpose for which such institutions are founded, the linkage to both secular and religious founding individuals and entities notwithstanding.

HAH, ....... and I suppose you also believe the same for all things "named" for Bob Byrd. .

The "BOB BYRD" name on those things is but an image to just one of our many fleeting political idols. It is not unlike the several once popular "Arch Moore" vocational & technical schools and other institutions- but most of which have gradually had their names changed to something less infamous.

The 21st century "BOB BYRD" image, too, will pass. So save your sheets and hoods.

SheikBen wrote:http://www.quaker.org/friends.html

Yes, good reading. I had read it previously.

Like Unitarians, Quakers have no formal doctrine. God is allowed to come forth from within, rather than forced from without. It is a refreshing practice for those who have been bombarded with the several "Jesus is God" doctrines, browbeaten with the flippant intensity of ten thousand fast food joint commercials.

I have never met a proselytizing Quaker. And for that I thank whatever gods there may be.

Zig,

Your charge of evangelicals not believing in intellectual freedom is an affront to an evangelical enjoying a good natured, fun debate.

By what basis do you argue that a Quaker claiming, through the reading that you have admitted to, that God's presence is in every person, somehow is not "supernatural." It seems to me that you are defining "supernatural" as "anything that Ziggy does not happen to like."

Please define for me what constitues "supernatural" for Ziggy and then how the Quakers are not practicioners of it.

SheikBen wrote:Zig,

Your charge of evangelicals not believing in intellectual freedom is an affront to an evangelical enjoying a good natured, fun debate.

To the degree that anyone would have me substitute his or her faith based fantasies for my best judgement and logical thoughts- as best I can determine logic and thoughtful judgement- I intend it as an affront.

It seems to me that you are defining "supernatural" as "anything that Ziggy does not happen to like."

I don't like getting sick. I don't like it that my parents are gone. I don't like hot summers and cold winters. There are probably a thousand and 12, or maybe even a thousand and 13 things I don't like. But they're all a part of the natural world around you and me, and so we have to learn to deal with it.

Please define for me what constitues "supernatural" for Ziggy and then how the Quakers are not practicioners of it.

Quakers can speak for themselves- as at least one has at the web site we indicated earlier. And I note that nothing there insists that Jesus was the product a a virgin birth, nor that "Resurrection Day" was at hand, nor that evolution is anything other than natural events occuring and changing the natural world over time, nor that anyone was raised from the dead, nor that fanciful heavens and hells await human beings in some promised after life. So in those matters at least, the Quakers represented at http://www.quaker.org/friends.html appear to not be supernaturalists.

As for Ziggy defining "supernatural", I can live with most of these English language dictionary definitions:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
su·per·nat·u·ral /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective

1.	of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

2.	of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

3.	of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.

4.	of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

–noun

5.	a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

6.	behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.

7.	direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

8.	the supernatural, a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively. b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

---

[Origin: 1520–30; < ML supernātūrālis. See super-, natural]

—Related forms su·per·nat·u·ral·ly, adverb
su·per·nat·u·ral·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. See miraculous.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

su·per·nat·u·ral [url=https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fsupernatural] (sōō'pər-nāch'ər-əl) Pronunciation Key adj. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. Of or relating to a deity. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. Of or relating to the miraculous. n. That which is supernatural. su'per·nat'u·ral·ly adv., su'per·nat'u·ral·ness n.

([/url]Download Now or Buy the Book)

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
supernatural (adj.)
c.1450 (implied in supernaturally), "above nature, transcending nature, belonging to a higher realm," from M.L. supernaturalis "above or beyond nature," from L. super "above" (see super-) + natura "nature" (see nature). Originally with more of a religious sense; association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since c.1799. The noun is attested from 1587.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This

supernatural
adjective
1.	not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material; "supernatural forces and occurrences and beings" [ant: [url=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural]natural]
noun
1.	supernatural forces and events and beings collectively; "She doesn't believe in the supernatural"

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

(SheikBen)- By what basis do you argue that a Quaker claiming, through the reading that you have admitted to, that God's presence is in every person, somehow is not "supernatural."

God's presence with every living being- be it a living animal or plant- that presence which allows and causes that living being to react naturally to stimuli- is as much a part of nature as the living beings themselves are. It is part and parcel to them. The laws of god are the laws of nature, and only through nature is god revealed.

I would add that god is present with non-living objects and matter as well. That non-living matter has predictable behavior throughout the known universe is the evidence of it. Again, the laws of god are the laws of nature, and only through nature is god revealed.

That we don't understand it all does not make any of it supernatural- only superhuman, or preterhuman.

Ziggy,

Is it possible that you are guilty of the very charge that you are levelling against the evangelical Christians?

Are we not all here to present our cases and exchange ideas? Are you saying that you would not "have someone else" change their opinion on the war? To suggest that wishing someone agreed with you amounts to an opposition of intellectual freedom is unfair.

I would like the US to get out UN and I would like the US to withdraw from the WTO, NAFTA, and CAFTA. I do not deny others the right to disagree with me nor do I wish to do so. I also accept that people who believe in free trade greatly outnumber me in Economics Departments and Political Science Departments in the universities. I would neither punish my students for disagreeing with me nor would I reward them for agreeing with me.

Surely just because someone does not understand something does not make it supernatural--I do not understand a fuel injection system but it does not make it supernatural. However, that you discount that something could be both not understood and supernatural shows that you have a religious position and are basing your inference of data in keeping with that position.

That is, Ziggy, you are advocating your worldview, based upon your religious beliefs, no less so than I am, and yet you do not hide from your insistence that yours is a legitimate worldview and mine is not. Tell me again why you believe that evangelical Christians are bigoted and intolerant? So far all I have from you are events that happened 400 years ago, an unfortunate treatment of you by a few teachers, but most notably, that you simply do not like evangelical Christian doctrine.

Do I get to call Muslims enemies of intellectual freedom because they do not eat bacon and I do? Do I get to call Mormons enemies of intellectual freedom because they would call my caffeine addiction sinful?

,

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Is it possible that you are guilty of the very charge that you are levelling against the evangelical Christians?

Are we not all here to present our cases and exchange ideas? Are you saying that you would not "have someone else" change their opinion on the war? To suggest that wishing someone agreed with you amounts to an opposition of intellectual freedom is unfair.

On this forum we are equals, in that there is no authoritarian coersion here- other than to be reasonably civil with one another. And so I do not worry that any of us are about to infringe on others' intellectual freedom to think and learn here. If we can be convincing enough to persuade someone that our arguments make sense and deserve some degree of adoption, then Ok. But if not, that's OK too.

But when religious zealots in Dayton Tennessee in 1925, or in Kansas in the late 20th century, or in Dover PA in the 21st century, among other times and places, scheme to prohibit teaching the best scientific evidences available about the natural world, and insist on requiring science teachers to substitute or add supernatural based texts and explanations into the science curriculum, that is denial of intellectual freedom to those who would teach and learn about natural science.

When heathen self-styled Christian religionsists and their equally heathen pastors and preachers in Kanawha County West Virginia in 1974 tried to deny students the benefit of knowledge of animal, including human, reproductive science and other knowledge, they were denying intellectual freedom to teach and to learn to teachers and to students.

Surely just because someone does not understand something does not make it supernatural ..........................

That has been part of the history of many of mankind- to attribuite to supernatural fantasy that which we otherwise do not understand. And, once adopted, we too often make a religion of that fantasy, subject to penalties for failure to adhere thereto- witness Galileo. Over the ages how many could have been Galileo caliber scientists, but were successfully prohibited from official heresy to the religious doctrine because their intellectual freedom to think and to speak was denied by religious authorities- under penalty of state punishment, sometimes including death?

However, that you discount that something could be both not understood and supernatural shows that you have a religious position and are basing your inference of data in keeping with that position.

What has there ever been, that was not understood by some peoples of certain eras, that has ever been shown to be anything other than natural phenomena- however not yet fully understood?

What evidence is there that anything that actually exists is not a part of the natural world?

That is, Ziggy, you are advocating your worldview, based upon your religious beliefs, no less so than I am, and yet you do not hide from your insistence that yours is a legitimate worldview and mine is not.

I am open to looking at any "worldview" that can withstand scientific methods of scrutiny. Genesis, in its raw language, doesn't, and the "miracles" of the Bible don't. Heaven and hell afterlives don't. Resurrections don't.

Tell me again why you believe that evangelical Christians are bigoted and intolerant?

I cited several examples above- Scopes, Topeka, Dover, Kanawha County 1974, etc.

So far all I have from you are events that happened 400 years ago, an unfortunate treatment of you by a few teachers, but most notably, that you simply do not like evangelical Christian doctrine.

I don't like it because it is (1) inhumanly and ungodly authoritarian as laid out by evangelical Christian doctrines, and (2) it does not meet scientific nor even lay scrutiny when it is compared to observable everyday events around us.

As are Quakers and Unitarians, for example, I am OK with Jesus the man, the teacher. But evangelical Christian doctrine is not satisfied with that. It overshadows the Jesus message with its demands for recognition of Jesus as God, Christ as Lord or King- as something superhuman and supernatural, and therefore due some extra-special spiritual deference.

Do I get to call Muslims enemies of intellectual freedom because they do not eat bacon and I do?

No. But we can call them enemies of intellectual freedom because they disallow writings they consider blasphemous of their religious symbols and doctrines.

Do I get to call Mormons enemies of intellectual freedom because they would call my caffeine addiction sinful?

No. And I think you are being deliberately disingenious in evading what you know I am talking about- the systematic prohibition by evangelical Christians and by other religions, when and as they have the power, and especially by those religions based in mere faith in their supernatural trappings, of the dissemination of information that would call into doubt the veracity of their doctrines and the alleged holiness of their leaders and symbols.