VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|HarryR|DATE|1367000407|CONTENT|@Stonyground 
Personally I have no objection to religious commentators having the use of TFTD platform along with everybody else. I do object when they  talk about AB and then draw a line to XY. The line is not visible to any one who doesn&#039;t share their specific religion and the connection either doesn&#039;t exist or can very easily be achieved without any detour through their religion at all.

If they don&#039;t have something interesting to say rather than something vacuous simply to assert the existence of and claim relevance for their particular brand of unsupported belief it&#039;s annoyingly boring. 

An atheist commentator may be equally committed to a non-theist dogma, so not really a freethinker as such. 

Rather than worrying about metaphysical beliefs of contributors TFTD should regard personal philosophy as a purely private matter that may or may not directly affect people&#039;s observable behaviours.

I recall an earlier suggestion made on this blog that &#039;ordinary&#039; people confronted daily with moral choices should have a go. 

Nurses and doctors are obvious. Car mechanics and driving license testers perhaps less so but they certainly have to make moral choices to do their jobs. Nuclear submarine captains. A single parent. Etc, etc.

A wider, deeper exploration of how people across a wide range of responsibilities make decisions in their daily lives would be far more informative and revealing about the human condition in our society that the farcical pretence that religious clergy have some special insight, in many cases without any practical experience whatever, to give guidance to the rest of us.

Whether even then it should interrupt the morning news programme is another question.|IP-ADDRESS|176.31.26.4|MODERATIONFLAG|