Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/20/07 16:32

Steve wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:LeCdnVDTxZOzH2zbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Steve wrote:
>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:t5qdnWpWN-VEnWzbnZ2dnUVZ_rmjnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:y8WdnUJ90JA_rW3bnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> "Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:EM-dnbxp44nLZnLbnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ah, but whether you like it or not, atheism is a religion. It is
>>>>>>>>>> not a "lack of belief" - it is a specifically belief there is no
>>>>>>>>>> god.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Try to deny it all you want. It won't work.
>>>>>>>>> negative, ghost rider.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'a' latin: without
>>>>>>>>> 'theism' latin: belief in god(s)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> try websters instead of your own opinion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which does not mean it is not a religion.
>>>>>>> so that means it does?! come one jerry, you're more logical than
>>>>>>> that!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who cares what the Latin roots mean? It's today's current usage that
>>>>>> counts.
>>>>> you obviously don't. just goes to show...
>>>>>
>>>> No, I don't. Words change meanings over the years. Definitions which
>>>> are 2,000 years old and not in agreement with current usage are
>>>> meaningful only to those who are unsuccessfully trying to make a point.
>>> well then that wouldn't be me. latin and greek are used as a base for
>>> creating words even today. they are used *because* they're "dead"
>>> languages and are not going to change to fit modern use. as i said
>>> before, your s.a.t scores must have s.u.c.k.e.d.
>>>
>> Yes, they are used as a BASE. That does not mean the words maintain the
>> same meaning today.
>>
>> A perfect example. In the 1800's and before, "Hello" was an exclamation
>> of surprise, not a greeting. It's meaning has changed.
>
> interesting. and hello is derived from? do you fail to note that in a
> dictionary, there is usually quite a good etymological account for the
> word...including multiple meanings?
>

Yes, but the point being - in the 1800's, "Hello" was not a greeting.
It is now. And the etymology is of interest to those who study word
meanings, but it really doesn't matter when you're discussing *today's*
usage.

>>>>>>>>> tell me, what rites, what cerimonies, what traditions do atheists
>>>>>>>>> observe? where do we congregate? what activities do we engage that
>>>>>>>>> resembles anything religious?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not necessary. You profess a belief in no god. That in itself is a
>>>>>>>> belief.
>>>>>>> i 'believe' i *observe no evidence* that would allow me to
>>>>>>> *logically* lead to me to a conclusion that god exists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it results in a belief. Or, more accurately, a disbelief.
>>>>> negative. it is a fact that there is no observable evidence that god
>>>>> exists. the ramification of that fact requires no belief whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>>> 200 years ago there was no proof that microbes existed. 150 years ago
>>>>>> there was no proof that radio waves existed. 100 years ago there was
>>>>>> no proof that atoms existed. So by your logic, since there was no
>>>>>> proof, these things didn't exist.
>>>>> no, people theorized that they existed. then, they went about making
>>>>> the tools needed to *observe* them. now we see them all quite well.
>>>>> scientifically, before we could see them literally, there were still
>>>>> observable signs that they did in fact exist...we just didn't know what
>>>>> they'd look like...we had an idea of how they behaved well before then
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>> No, people didn't even theorize these things existed back then. They
>>>> had no idea. A few people had "faith" they existed. But since faith
>>>> isn't proof, according to your logic they didn't exist.
>>> hmmm, they have indications (preliminary 'proofs') that these things
>>> existed. rather than just taking on 'faith' that they did, wanting to
>>> know if they were right in the first place, they *tested* the theories.
>>> they even built sophisticated tools to help them. science is not going to
>>> hinge results on 'faith'...and it was the lack thereof that lead to the
>>> discovery and better understanding of these things. darwin theorized a
>>> mechanism of replication long before we knew about genes, however he
>>> didn't willy-nilly that they existed (you just needed a pinch of faith to
>>> 'see' them) and focused himself on what he observed. now we have proof
>>> they do and we understand them to an unimaginable degree then when
>>> someone just suspected they existed. it is anti-take-it-on-faith and a
>>> lot of hard work that gives us meaninful, useful answers.
>>>
>> You mean the Egyptian Pharaohs had indications that any of these existed?
>> Or are you saying since they didn't have any indications, none of these
>> existed?
>
> they did not consider it...no one did until they said, 'hey! what does this
> information idicate?' then they tested what they saw (whomever 'they' were).
> see how it works? stop being an idiot with your strawmen arguments.
>

Actually, the first reference to atoms was in India in the 6th century
BC. And the Greek scientist Democritus coined the word "atomos", meaning
"uncuttable". But they had no way to prove atoms really existed. But
it wasn't until the 1970's that the tunneling electron microscope
allowed scientists to actually see atoms. Sure, there were other
indications, such as X-ray diffraction crystallography indicated the
presence of atoms, but three was no real "proof" of them.

But back to the point - so you're saying since the Indians and Greeks
had no way to prove atoms existed, then atoms didn't exist and they
should not have believed in them. That's your definition of the
"scientific principal", anyway. If there is no proof of something, then
it doesn't exist.

>> No, they had no indications these things existed. For instance, it wasn't
>> until Luigi Galvani and other physicists of his age started playing around
>> with electricity that they even knew electromagnetic waves existed. There
>> was no "preliminary proof" - in fact, it was a huge surprise to Galvani
>> that an electric current would deflect a compass. And it wasn't until
>> Marconi, Tesla and others actually discovered electromagnetic waves could
>> send information over great distances.
>>
>> The same with other discoveries. It doesn't mean these things didn't
>> exist before that time. Just that there was no proof.
>
> that's not like god at all. they discoved them by accident. they didn't
> declare WITHOUT EVIDENCE that these things existed. they just weren't
> considered since they were unknown. further, while they 'playing around',
> they saw signs of something...an *indication* of something. they used those
> *indications* to formulate and predict what these things were. again, your
> example is non-sequitur to our argument at hand.
>

And exactly what "evidence" did the Greeks and Indians have that atoms
existed?

>> However, by your "logic", the lack of proof they existed means they
>> didn't.
>
>
> funny, whether or not a thing exists is only meaningful if we have
> *indications* of them. otherwise, we don't know they are there to
> consider...further, if they are said to exist but are nothing more than a
> statement of existence, you are in the same boat! why consider either? why
> worry about things you can't prove exist? if you stumble across something,
> great! if you see something no one else has, great! but to just flatly state
> god exists and offer NO evidence is not only intellectually dishonest, it is
> devoid of intellect and is more closely related to fraud. faith be damned.
>

I don't worry about things that I can't prove exist. But I have faith
that my God does exist.

And why should I have to "prove" my God exists to you - or anyone else?
There is no fraud involved. I have stated my belief. You can choose
to believe or not. It's up to you.

>
>>>>>>> that is a PROCESS and not a belief. it is called scientific method.
>>>>>>> i'm sure your response will be that science, too, is a religion. just
>>>>>>> a prediction. ;^)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> The scientific method deals with proving or disproving the existence
>>>>>> of something - a physical item, a behavior, etc. But according to the
>>>>>> scientific method, lack of proof one way or the other does not mean
>>>>>> something does or does not exist.
>>>>> ass backwards. religion claims god exists. logic and science demands
>>>>> proof. if no proof, the claim is not verified and by default, false or
>>>>> held without merit until such proof is provided. this is basic stuff,
>>>>> jerry. why is god the only theory you wouldn't apply such reason to?
>>>>> i'm hoping it's the only one anyway!
>>>>>
>>>> No, if there is no proof, the scientific method defines them as
>>>> "unproven". Period. It does not take a stand on whether something
>>>> "unproven" exists or does not exist. Don't try to twist it to your
>>>> meanings. It ain't gonna work.
>>> lol. i can see your eutopian headline now..."magical sky pixies exist!"
>>> and in the article, your version of scientists (creationists in lab
>>> coats) are quoted saying, "at first we didn't know what to make of it,
>>> but someone told us they were real and sure enough, we we looked through
>>> our eyes of faith, we could see them clear as day."
>>>
>>> either way, the claim that god exists is of religion and is then,
>>> religion's burden to prove. most of the christian philosophers and
>>> theologists concede that god can't be proven or even known. yet, you
>>> believe you can and that he somehow wants to know you...for his
>>> "benefit"? obsurd.
>>>
>> Again, just because it isn't "proven" to your liking that a god exists
>> (and may never be) doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
>
> proven to ANY one since there is no means to falsify the notion of god,
> santa, toothfairy, or the magical sky pixies. there is NO OBJECTIVE
> EVIDENCE. got it yet? hell, if you can provide some, then the world
> inclusive of theological scholars and and philosophers would love to see
> it...they've all been waiting for that day since the dawn of
> man...errr...rather, the day man thought up god.
>

Not to you, there isn't. And no, I'm not even going to try to provide
any objective evidence to you - or anyone else. I have my beliefs, and
that's good enough for me.

>>>>> btw, you cannot disprove existence! to exist would mean there'd be
>>>>> *observable* evidence. atheists aren't dumb enough to want to disprove
>>>>> the existence of something. without evidence, there simply is no merit
>>>>> to the idea that god does exist...a proposition religion puts out. the
>>>>> basic argument is that if a thing exists, it should have signs of said
>>>>> existence. sorry, god does not.
>>>>>
>>>> Not in your eyes, it doesn't, anyway. But you're open to your opinion.
>>> tell me then, in your eyes, how one exactly goes about proving something
>>> doesn't exist when any objective evidence gathered would be a result of
>>> that thing existing. i know you're irrational when it comes to religion
>>> and fail to apply any logic to your beliefs (the only way religion can be
>>> digested anyway), but surely this monsterous delima didn't just pass
>>> under your radar undetected!
>>>
>> You can't prove non-existence. You can only prove existence. And I have
>> the proof I need to believe.
>
> i believe i stated that first. right, you cannot prove a thing not to exist.
>
> i'm glad you have all the proof you need. your statement of *faith* was
> never a part of this conversation. but, again, so glad for you.
>
>>>>>>>>> as i said, there is no objective evidence that would lead me to
>>>>>>>>> believe that god exists. no more *subjective* evidence for god than
>>>>>>>>> for santa clause or the toothfairy or the boogy man. are you saying
>>>>>>>>> that this critical observation makes me a religious atoothfarian or
>>>>>>>>> a asanta-clausian?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's fine. It's your opinion and you're welcome to it. But don't
>>>>>>>> try to convince me my opinion is wrong.
>>>>>>> sorry, religious people are in the *business* of converting. as for
>>>>>>> opinion?
>>>>>> That is a gross overgeneralization.
>>>>> well, that is the great commission, no? the catholic church has a
>>>>> litany of instances of making a buck...which is what pissed off martin
>>>>> luther. how many televangelists give more than they make? let me bring
>>>>> this home...what percent of your churches budget goes to endeavors
>>>>> outside of the church? yes, exclude its own operating expenses. now,
>>>>> think of how you worship. new and exciting, almost marketed, right?
>>>>> appealing to younger crowds, yes? whatever percentage you came up with,
>>>>> you cannot fund a thing if you aren't a going concern...and once going,
>>>>> that percent tends to be very small given the overall funding. churches
>>>>> tend to want to expand their complex's in stead of helping those in
>>>>> need.
>>>>>
>>>> A significant portion of my church's outside expenses involve helping
>>>> people who need it, regardless of race, color, creed, etc. But I'm sure
>>>> you'll try to claim we are trying to "convert" these people. We are
>>>> not.
>>> i'm glad to hear your chuch is an exception. however, ALL CHRISTIANS are
>>> charged with the great commission. and yet you say you have nothing to do
>>> with 'converting' people!?!! did you miss that in sunday school?
>>>
>> If you really understood, that is more the norm than the exception.
>> Churches are good stewards.
>
> i really understand that what i said is part of my experience with many
> churches and is right there, not a one-off or second-hand he/she/said.
>

Yes, it is part of YOUR experience. And that experience is 1) a very
limited sampling of churches in the world, and 2) a very non-random
sample. So your generalization is meaningless because it was formulated
on insufficient and biased facts.

>>>>> that is perhaps a *generalization*, but not gross. and either way, that
>>>>> is my opinion based on my experience.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is. And it shows how little you really understand.
>>> then i 'misunderstood' it from birth till age 20 all through church,
>>> bible school, camp, christian universities...i suppose i missed it since
>>> i've always applied the same logical requirements of claims regardless of
>>> their 'sacred' status.
>>>
>> So you're basing your opinions on your experience as a younger person on
>> one (or a few) church(es) - and saying all (or at least the majority) are
>> the same. Hardly a representative sample, I would say.
>
> i never swayed the arm to encompass more of them than my experience.
> probably all churches are NOT that way, however ALL the churches in which
> i've been involved are. see the difference?
>

I'm glad you finally admit it. But that is a direct contradiction to
your previous statement: "sorry, religious people are in the *business*
of converting."

So a correct statement would be "sorry, religious people I'VE MET are in
the *business* of converting." A big difference.

>
>>>>> btw, ain't it neat how churches now give sermonettes about tithing?
>>>>> isn't it sad that most of those sermonetts are geared to 'what you get
>>>>> back from' rather than 'you should do this so that we can' kind of
>>>>> language.
>>>>>
>>>> btw, ain't it neat how many Californians (or you name the group) are
>>>> murders? I see something on the news all the time about people
>>>> murdering others out there. So all those people who haven't been killed
>>>> must be murders.
>>> and that relates how? the trend of non-denominal churches started in the
>>> 80's. living in texas, i had/have unparalleled access to them. these
>>> sermonettes abounded and i still hear them each sunday at the church i
>>> attend. none of that original comment was a generalization at all, nor
>>> exageration...statement of fact.
>>>
>> So, if you're an atheist, why do you even bother attending church? And
>> since you do admit you attend, maybe you're looking for the wrong things
>> in a church.
>
> no, i sit quietly and bite my tounge most of the time. my kids like going
> and i want them to learn social skills. church is just another avenue for
> that. it is also great for entertainment...part of those funds that could go
> to those in need being used instead to keep enrollment up and perhaps draw
> new folks...ooops, i digress, i went there again!
>
> i have some really good friends there. that's all its about to me. it's just
> having to sit through the blathering for an hour that gets me sometimes.
>

And do your friends know your true feelings? Or are you a closet atheist?

>> Sure, I hear these sermonettes, also. And it is how they need more money
>> for community outreach, etc.
>
> well in texas, you'd probably hear some of that. but, mostly, you'd hear the
> impetous for your tithing sounding like 'this is what god will do for you or
> bless you with if you [give us your money]'.
>

In YOUR church, anyway.

>>> now how do you get from there to trying to contrive a logical analogy
>>> that doesn't even come close to fitting the statement i actually made?
>>>
>> Sure it does. You've visited a few churches and found they all ask for
>> money for various reasons. I pick up the newspaper and hear a lot of news
>> about Californians murdering each other. You say all churches are that
>> way. So by the same logic I can only assume all Californians are that
>> way.
>
> i said my church'n experience runs from a to nth length of time, and of the
> churches which i frequented, this was my experience. that hardly encompasses
> ALL churches. so, there you are, non-sequitur yet again.
>

NOW you say "my church's experience". A far cry from the
overgeneralization you made earlier that all churches were that way.

>>>> This is exactly the type of gross overgeneralization you're (again)
>>>> making, and it shows just how little you really understand - despite
>>>> what you *think* you know.
>>> not a generalization nor exageration. statement of fact. in fact, i'll be
>>> happy to audio this sunday's and post it for you. i'm assured to a degree
>>> of 95% that it will contain the same content as it has for years, the
>>> only thing differing is the babble story that goes with it.
>>>
>> Again, you're basing your statements on a very limited number of churches
>> that you selected for one reason or another. Hardly a representative
>> sample on many grounds.
>
> uhmmm, that sample represents 100% of the churches i've been involved in. i
> never made claims that should have been taken as ALL churches.
>

Go back and read your statements.

>>>>>>> we cannot both be right. and as you have NO evidence to support that
>>>>>>> there is a god, the logical conclusion that should be drawn is that
>>>>>>> there, in fact, is none. further, that our notions of god(s) evolve
>>>>>>> over time to match our changing sophistication of thought is more
>>>>>>> proof for the idea that man created god rather than vice versa. so
>>>>>>> much the case is this, that we have nietche proclaiming that 'god is
>>>>>>> dead'!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faulty logic.
>>>>> now is where you support *how* that logic is faulty. nietche describes
>>>>> exactly what i summerized. now you think you're prepared to take on
>>>>> nietche? go right ahead, the laugh will do me good.
>>>>>
>>>> Lack of evidence that something exists is NOT proof that it does not
>>>> exist. Faulty logic.
>>> it is an indication. further indications as pointed out by nietche (which
>>> you must have never read) such as the apparent evolution of god
>>> cooinciding with man's changes in sophistication of thought, just make
>>> your claim that one does (all the while never producing a shred of
>>> evidence in the whole of human-kind) seem laughable. nietche akins it to
>>> god being a "god of the gaps" in human understanding, and that as science
>>> fills those gaps with actual knowledge, god looses a home. 'god is dead'
>>> just means that he's about to turn up homeless.
>>>
>> No, according to the scientific method, it is not an indication of
>> presence or absence.
>
> an indication that the premise 'god exists' is wrong. do try to keep up.
> that would naturally infer 'presence' AND the 'absence' thereof. without
> evidence, you're stuck with that. give me some proof, and i'll hush up.
>

I never said there was an indication. All I said that the lack of an
indication neither proves nor disproves whether something exists or not.

>>> nothing faulty there. remember, we are not trying to *prove* god exists.
>>> we are DEMANDING that you either put up or shut up...actually, we just
>>> want you put up...we couldn't care less what you delude yourself with -
>>> as long as we aren't funding it.
>>>
>> And quite frankly, I don't care what you're "demanding". If you choose to
>> not believe, that is your free choice. I have no onus to prove a god
>> exists to you.
>
> if you make a claim, the burden of proof is left to you to provide. else, it
> is a meaningless statement in itself and in its proclamation.
>

It is a statement of my belief. That's all. I need not provide you nor
anyone else "proof" of my beliefs.

> bandersnatches exist. and, they go clickety-clack. one should be ware of
> them.
>

Good for them.

> now, what do you care to do with that information without evidence? pretty
> irrelevant to anyone, isn't it.
>

If you want to believe it, more power to you.

>>>>>>>> As for proof - I have no proof you exist. All I see is some text on
>>>>>>>> my screen. It could have been generated by a computer. So by your
>>>>>>>> reasoning, I should not believe you exist. But I have faith that
>>>>>>>> you do.
>>>>>>> well, you have proof that something respondse to you. what you infer
>>>>>>> about that is up to you. however, you have *objective* evidence from
>>>>>>> which you can draw such conclusions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have proof that letters appear on my screen. Period. Nothing more,
>>>>>> nothing less. I have no idea what the source of those characters are.
>>>>> not the point. the point is, that those letters are in direct response
>>>>> to you. what you make of it means nothing to me...it's just that your
>>>>> point sucks. those letters are *objective* evidence of SOMETHING! we
>>>>> have NOTHING for the case of god. get it now?
>>>>>
>>>> No, that is the point. They could very well be created by random noise
>>>> at the subatomic level. There is no "proof" that you exist. Therefore,
>>>> according to your logic, you do not.
>>> don't be an idiot. the proof indicates that SOMETHING exists whether it
>>> is me or random noise, there is something you can observe and
>>> scientifically conclude what that source is!
>>>
>>> and since that is your strawman rather than my logic, it doesn't merit
>>> anyone's time.
>>>
>> Sure, and from my perspective, it could be random noise. There is nothing
>> to prove otherwise.
>
> and that is your conclusion based on what you've observed.
>

There is nothing to disprove that statement.

> phewf, i though you'd need a few more posts before you finally got the
> general gist of it.
>
>>>>>>> this is something no one can do for god. subjective evidence is as
>>>>>>> interpretationally valid as the delusions of an insane person.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'it won't work'...lol. a lack of belief in something does not a
>>>>>>>>> religion make. specifically, it is the belief *IN* something that
>>>>>>>>> would be the start of religion.
>>>>>>>> And you have a belief in the lack of a god.
>>>>>>> negative ghost rider,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i have drawn the conclusion that god does not exist because there is
>>>>>>> NO objective evidence that he does. one is a conclusion and the
>>>>>>> other, fact. there is no belief in that equation.
>>>>>> That's fine. That's your opinion. But do not try to convince me that
>>>>>> you are right and I am wrong. And don't try to stop me from
>>>>>> practicing my religion.
>>>>> make a deal with you. you stop thinking its ok for your religion to be
>>>>> practiced in publically sponsored venues such as court houses, schools,
>>>>> parks, etc. and i'll stop bitching about you trying to ram yours down
>>>>> my throat. as for what you do in your home or church or anywhere else
>>>>> not *sponsored* by the state, i couldn't care less how deeply deluded
>>>>> you care to take your mental depravity.
>>>> I'm not trying to ram my religion down your throat. But you are trying
>>>> to stop me from practicing my religion. It's zealots like you that the
>>>> Bill of Rights was designed to protect us against. Unfortunately, that
>>>> original intent has been lost over the years.
>>> oh but you are whenever your schools make time to pray - your coaches
>>> specifically praying to christ before sporting events - your courts
>>> making you swear oaths on a book of lies (only recently has an option
>>> been given)...not forcing your religion! poppy-cock!
>>>
>> Note I said "Non-Denominational", with opt-out for those who want it. And
>> while I have no problem with swearing on a bible, I know there are those
>> who do. And I have no problem with them taking an oath on another book or
>> even their wallet if they want.
>
> again, would those be non-denominational zen budhists or non-denominational
> satanists or non-denominational hindus or non-denominational muslims or
> non-denominational wiccans or ...
>
> there should be no need for a situation that required an opt-out option in
> the first place!
>

Sure. They all worship a god (or in some cases gods). It is a prayer
to their god.

And the world is full of opt-out situations every day. Every choice you
make you can opt to go another way.

>>> the bill of rights has been interpreted consistently on this issue since
>>> williams (a protestant theologean) first postulated that religion
>>> sponsored by government is not a religion of any kind of merit, that
>>> religion can stand on its own and further, that government endorsement of
>>> religion actually hinders its advancement. thomas jefferson interpreted
>>> the establishment clause as a 'wall of seperation', president tyler
>>> shared the same sentiment...in fact, never in our history has a president
>>> contradicted the idea of the seperation of church and state and the
>>> supreme court has always held to that very same idea. this in not a
>>> recent 'misunderstanding', this is a consistent *understanding* of the
>>> problems establishment and an unwaivering commitment to not repeat
>>> history.
>>>
>>> whatever you want to say about that is fine. you obviously only see
>>> things your way regardless of your lack of studies on any topic thus far
>>> discussed.
>> I never said there should not be separation of church and state. But when
>> the state says I can't practice my religion in certain circumstances, that
>> separation is gone.
>
> uhummm, how stupid can you be? by what mechanism at the disposal of the
> government would it be possible to keep separate the affairs of the church
> and the affairs of the state is NO ONE is enforcing said wall?!!!
>

Let the state remain NEUTRAL in such matters. Neither promoting nor
prohibiting.

> the constitution affords that no rats shall be allowed in public buildings
> such as schools and parks and libraries and such. if those over the schools,
> parks, libraries and such do not keep the rats out, they will surely come
> in!
>

It does? And which amendment is that?

> you have equal access to practice your beliefs as anyone else. the standard
> is the same. the laws are the same. if you feel the gov. should favor you
> more, then you're more arrogant that i thought.
>

No, but YOU feel the government should favor YOU more. I just want the
right to practice my religion. You want to refuse me that right - even
though it is doing NO HARM to you.

>> After all - what harm does it do to you that a coach offers a prayer
>> before a big game? Are you afraid your children will start asking
>> questions about something you don't believe in?
>
> i don't know. you tell me. what if he's leading your kid in a prayer to
> satan? what would your problem be with that? what, are you afraid your
> children will start asking questions about something you don't believe in?
>
> don't be moronic.
>
>

You're the one who wants it banned, not me. And a non-denominational
prayer, by definition, is one towards no specific god. So he can't be
praying to Satan - it would not be non-denominational.

Don't be moronic.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[Back to original message]