Isn't it true though that if we relied only on what we already know to be true, there'd be no advancement in science? It is only a belief that we do not know everything that pushes us forward.

Maybe I'm a weirdo in that I don't believe science and faith in god to be mutually exclusive.

Do you honestly expect me to answer such a fallaciously based question?

By declaring the sign and/or its message as "stupid" is patently subjective, not to mention fallacious.

Just because you disagree with the statement (and ascribed the ubsubstantiated label of "stupid") does not invalidate the statement.

Notwithstanding, the "bottom line" is those who disbelieve in religion have THE SAME RIGHT as those who do believe in religion to their expression, whether publicly or privately.

This issue is a matter of public display, obviously...and under the 1st Amendment non-religious people have the same freedom/equal access to the Capitol of Washington as religious people do.

However, religious people are claiming the 'special pleading fallacy' in that they, and only they, have such a right; and non-religious people DO NOT have this right.

That, in and of itself, is not only immoral and flies in the face of common sense; it is patently unconstitutional (not to mention hypocritical).

That "is the subject" of this thread.

;)

S.D.

I'm tempted to take the other side to see if you really can hold your own, but heading into the weekend I haven't the energy for it. If it is still going on Monday I just may.

*Settles in on the couch with a bucket of popcorn*

"I gotta see this..."

Then I look forward to Monday ;)

Yours truly,

S.D.

Wow. What an....interesting....way to make a name for yourself in a new environment.

Oh, I think we'll find Sir Dillon VERY entertaining, Prudence. Sit with me here on the couch.

Scoot over. Make room for me. :D

I already apologized via pvt msg for the forward/direct comment; and do so here.

Notwithstanding...such an albeit arrogant or presumptuous forward comment does not change or alter the reality that it is 'the truth.'

Human beings are violent...and over the past 2,000 years religion has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence between various races, ethnicities, and/or religious denominations.

Obscuring this FACT by criticizing my forward comment to such realities will NOT change this FACT of human history, past or present.

In other words, your comment was patently unfair in regards to my new presence within this forum.

S.D.

One post before the weekend anyway. If that is the issue, then you seem to be arguing about the wrong things. Not one person in this thread has stated an opinion contrary to the idea that whatever group put up that sign should be allowed to. Every person in this thread has said that they do and that they should.

All that has been contested is whether, from a civility perspective the sign posted sends a positive or negative message.

So, you say the former is the issue of this thread, but have spent all of your time arguing about the latter. Please have this confusion clarified by Monday, for if I am going to take the contrary side, I need to know which argument I am actually to be making as one will be much more difficult than the other seeing as it will fly in the face of (on this board anyway) unanimity. It would suck to lose on points because I've been penalized for being masterfully eloquent on the wrong topic.