Darkwing, I was trying to outline your assumptions with light-hearted humour.
If you can't laugh, well, that's just sad.
Let me be less subtle:
You don't know my age, yet presume to be older (and implicitely wiser).
You don't know my country, yet presume it is filled with agit-prop (btw, I do not need to look it up to guess what it stands for); and agit-prop about US politics, no less!
Do you really believe the rest of the world is constantly focused on you guys? Have you never left american soil?
You don't know how I arrive(d) to any conclusion, yet presume they emerge from teenage rebellion (though if I read you right, you apparently believe all convictions emerge from teenage rebellion); they do not.
You accuse me of reading what isn't there, then, in the next breath, repeat the very implication you just denied, and with a heavier hand.
You presume to teach wisdom, but rely heavily on emotional appeals such as the one below.
On the matter of US politics, I will concede that I didn't know of JFK's catholicism. I thought Obama was the first non-WASP; and that the P still stood.
But the point remains: no non-christian (and very few non-protestants) have the political capita to make it in your country.
Of course, the obstacles aren't institutionalised; but that's not the point, the point is that they couldn't make it, even though they're allowed to try.
You're trying to paint the exceedingly dominant majority as suffering the joug of militant atheism; it's quite frankly FoxNewsish.
By the way, if FoxNews is a left-leaning organisation, then I suppose the media that actually try to be unbiased (BBC, The Times, Le Monde,...) are full-on anarcho-communists!
Longinus especially seems to react to the idea of religion and to chaplains in Trek in much the same way that religous people do to gay's demands for equality: Shields up! Start citing scripture and verse (or episode and season, in this case) to justify saying "nononononono!" Think about it.
So, anyone that answers the thread's question negatively is a militant atheist?
But anyone answering it positively isn't a militant theist. Obviously not.
No double standard here.
He cited canon? Yes. So did plenty of other people. Many many threads on these boards end up heavily citing canon. Why is it anathema in this particular case?