|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/20/07 16:47
Shelly wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:8vmdnQIFNe8zCmzbnZ2dnUVZ_tWtnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> First of all, we aren't trying to take over the world. But you are trying
>> to take over the world by destroying all religion. You're not doing it in
>> meetings - you're trying to take away our legal rights to practice our
>> religions.
>
> Once again, prove your idiotic statement here. You are claiming that by not
> giving you favorable status, you are being deprived of your legal right to
> practice your religion. That is out and out bullshit. You can prractice
> your religion as you see fit anywhere EXCEPT at public expense and on public
> property -- just like ANYONE ELSE.
>
No, I'm not asking for favorable status. And I said NOTHING about
PUBLIC EXPENSE. I have NEVER, ANYWHERE IN THIS THREAD said public money
should be spent on religion.
> Jerry, are you old enough to remember the "Domino Theory". It was
> formulated by Republicans that if one country falls to Communism, then its
> neighbor would fall and so on. It is another name for the slippery slope.
> Once you permit religious displays on public property, then ALL religious
> displays need to be allowed. That includes Satanism, The Religion of
> Nudity, etc. etc. Just because you may find it offensive is not a valid
> response to disallow a specific religious display. (I can assure you that
> there are many non-Christians that would find Christian displays
> offensive.). If it becomes the provence of government to decide what is
> offensive and what is not in religious displays, then you can go the road of
> Saudi Arabia where you, Jerry, would not be able to bring a cross into the
> country. Better to make it black and white. NO religious displays on
> public property and NO such displays funded by government.
>
That's fine with me. Let all religions display, as long as it is in
good taste - i.e. no nudity. Also, it is the government's job to decide
what is offensive and what is not. They do it every day. Try walking
down the street naked. You'll be arrested. That's the government
deciding your nudity is offensive.
As for Satanism, Wicca, etc., while I might find those symbols
personally offensive, there is nothing in the symbols which goes against
the morals of the community, so they should be allowed.
>>> we have no movement outside of not allowing religion to permeate *every*
>>> sector of public domain. that is an action and far from diatribe.
>>>
>> If you had your way, there would be no religion. You've said so yourself.
>
> He didn't say what you are implying here. His position, and I paraphrase
> here, "is that he hopes everyone would mature enough to gain the wisdom that
> God is irrelevent.". You, on the other hand, are implying that he wants
> this to happen by fiat. He never even hinted at such a situation.
>
I never said he wanted it to happen by fiat. Don't put words in my mouth.
>>> it's a logical comparison. however and again, my *claim* is that there is
>>> no objective evidence that god exists! get that through your pea-sized
>>> brain! the logical conclusion would be that there is no god.
>>>
>> The *logical* conclusion is that there would be no way to know whether a
>> god exists or not.
>
> 1 - The "scientific" statement is that the existence of god cannot be
> proven.
> 2 - The "logical" next step is that since there is no basis for such a
> hypothesis, then it should be rejected until such time as some evidence can
> be brought forth.
>
> That is what he is saying.
>
Since there is no proof one way or the other, there is no "next logical
step", because any "next step" can be neither proven nor disproven.
>> You're trying to say leprechauns are gods. My statement is they are not
>> recognized by society as gods. Not even the Irish believe they are.
>
> You totally misunderstand what he is saying.
>
No, I understand exactly what he's saying.
>>> i'm not against ANY religion. i go to church every sunday and blend in
>>> just like you, jerry. i suspect a surprising number of your flock are
>>> just like me, skeptical people in fancy suits just hoping no one asks,
>>> 'so, how's your walk with our lord jesus christ'. by the way, i fit in
>>> quite well and am close with my pastor...we golf every weekend. go
>>> figure.
>>>
>> So you're saying you're a hypocrite. You go to church but don't believe
>> in the teachings of the church. Ok.
>
> He is not a hypocrite. He SAID he is going there for the social aspect. It
> is a meeting place, after all. Look up the word "hypocrite". It means
> saying one thing but doing the opposite. He SAYS he goes for the social
> aspect but ignores the religious message as irrelevent. Where is the
> hypocrisy? Where is he doing the opposite of what he says?
>
> Shelly
>
He goes to church and tries to stay awake during the service. Does he
tell his minster and friends he is an atheist and only goes there to
socialize?
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|