Posted by Shelly on 09/19/07 23:02

"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.

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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

>> 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

[Back to original message]