Religion & Law

John has coined this as a description of a position I've taken in the past, that that the non-religious should not care about the theology of the religious or their internal struggles with it, that is set out nicely by The Sensuous Curmudgeon (and why wasn't I told about this blog before, eh?):

Our position is to totally disregard what we consider to be a sectarian disagreement among various denominations about whether scripture should be read in a manner to deny verifiable information about reality. One might describe our position as including both curiosity that such disputes exist, and indifference as to whether the disputants ever figure it out.

We become concerned only when a reality-denial sect threatens to go malignant, seeking to forcefully spread its dogma beyond its own voluntary membership. Absent such malignancy ? which requires vigorous opposition ? why should we care about theological debates among denominations? And why should we involve ourselves in their disagreements?

Don?t misunderstand ? we?re not impartial. We prefer a world in which everyone thinks and behaves rationally, and we approve of scientific research and education. We humbly endeavor to achieve to those ends. (What else is this blog?) But we recognize that such efforts are unappreciated by some groups. Their choices are not our concern ? unless they are literally a threat to our freedom. Should that happen, and it does, you?ll hear from us, and you do; but such are exceptional situations.

[I]n my intellectual imperialism, I take it to be my own position, and hence either an accommodationism, or accommodationism is an indifferentialism.

________________________________________

P.S. Don't forget ?New Agnostic? too (scroll down in comments).
.