|
|
Posted by Shelly on 09/20/07 01:14
"Herb" <herb_k@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1190249006.190962.5160@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 19, 8:13 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>> "Herb" <her...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1190246181.995323.178430@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 19, 7:47 pm, "Shelly" <sheldonlg.n...@asap-consult.com> wrote:
>> >> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:hJednR0Nt97SAmzbnZ2dnUVZ_u7inZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> >> > Shelly wrote:
>> >> >> You can practice your religion on any PRIVATE property that allows
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> do so and you can make any statement you wish in a public place
>> >> >> concerning religion -- just not at PUBLICLY paid for events. Those
>> >> >> are
>> >> >> paid for by people like ME who do not practice YOUR religion.
>>
>> > so you object to the US funding Israel, do you?
>>
>> Israel is a country, not a religion.
>
> look up "disingenous", as my reply to your statement above (as if
> Israel is a secular state, uh huh)
Israel is a democracy. About 25% of the country is Muslim. Yes, it the
Jewish homeland. So?
>
>> I have no problem with the US helping
>> any of our allies. I have no problem with helping Israel (mostly Jews),
>> France (a half century ago and mostly Catholic), Japan (same time frame
>> and
>> mostly Buddhist), India (mostly Hindu), etc., etc. so long as they are
>> allies. Are you saying that Israel is not our ally?
>
> Ally? No, our beneficiary. The religion-and-ethnicity-based state of
> Israel will pursue it's own interests at every turn, and not ours. I
> cab recall Sharon saying just that, during the Lebanon incursion of a
> generation ago.
EVERY nation will follow its self-interest first. So does England and
Canada. Does that make England and Canada not our allies? Your logic is
so faulty it is not worth pursuing this argument.
>
>>
>> > btw, were you a big fan of Maplethorpe?
>>
>> I had to look up who Maplethorpe is. The photographs I saw on the net
>> are
>> very artistic. Do you have a problem with the beauty of the human body?
>
> hehe... you are funny, Sheldon.
>
> Maplethorpe did mainly homosexual porno, and called it as art. He also
> was a terrible anti-Christian bigot.
....as I siad, I had to look it up. I had no idea who he is/was.
> Now, if anbybody went to the National Endowment for the Arts, and
> asked to get money to take pictures of crucifixes, they would have
> been figuratively ejected from the building. But Maplethorpe put a
> crucifix in a glass of his own urine, and *THAT* was art. It was
> publicly supported, too - aka tax dollars.
I don't know the specifics, so I can't comment.
>
> Such is the natural outgrowth of your arguments, in that religion gets
> excluded and suppressed, but anti-Christianity gets endorsed.
Excluded, yes. Suppressed, no.
> It also leads to a godless religion (like secular humanism, which has
> evolved into political-correctness) having the ability to become the
> established religion.
I can't even begin to talk to you about such drivel.
> Are you gay? Is that why you like Maplethorpe's photos?
Are you a woman because you like photos of women? I looked on the web at
the nudes (the women), and I found them artistic. End of discussion. (I
won't even honor your question with an answer).
I've had enough of talking to you. Jerry may be looking through blinders,
but at least he is not a bigot. I won't answer another one of your posts no
matter what garbage you put there.
Shelly
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|