"Googler" <GOOGLE.4.godfatha@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>Although Sweet tries to hide his intent with a lot of scientific
>language, political rhetoric, and outright mistatements, his
>anti-religion agenda is manifest.

So, opposing Creationists is anti-religious? 
>
>Beginning with the title  - why title the piece "Religion instead of
>Science" unless you are asserting a conflict between the two?

There *is* a conflict - between those who would push their religion *as*
science and those who would keep science and religion separate.  The
Creationists (and their IDiot allies) are indeed trying to substitute
their religion for science.  Opposing this does *not* make a person
anti-religious.

> There
>isn't any such conflict, but the title would imply there is.

There *is* a conflict, just not the one you think Sweet is talking
about.
>
>The article calls creationism a "theological position", implying that
>there is some actual theological basis for it and again emphasizing the
>religious tie-in.

Because it *is* a religious position, pure and simple.  And it *is*
based on a particular approach to Bibilical exegesis, and so it is a
*theological* position as well.  Acknowledging this is not 

>  He implies this is a dictionary definition.  Well,
>maybe Sweet's dictionary really says this. However, my edition of the
>same dictionary calls creationism a *belief*.  Now a belief could be
>religious, but it doesn't have to be.

So?  The form of Creationism being espoused by the neo-cons *is* a
religious position.  This is true no matter what any dictionary says.

-- 
The peace of God be with you.

Stanley Friesen