Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Don't be silly. We should only summarily imprison, inquisite, and/or execute those who express viewpoints contrary to MY opinion!

[Carol Brady]Kevy's right[/Carol Brady]

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Agreed. But there's a line that can be drawn, and in this country that line is at the governmental level. If the government is funding it, I think it's wrong.

If?

The Governor of Washington State was merely allowing equal access to the Capitol to the atheist display as it did the religious display.

There is NO government funding involved.

S.D.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

If?

The Governor of Washington State was merely allowing equal access to the Capitol to the atheist display as it did the religious display.

There is NO government funding involved.

S.D.

I never claimed there was. I was simply discussing with Moonliner where I draw the line on religious displays on public property.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Bornieo: Fully Loaded

I can only pretend for so long...

As your avatar/picture suggests...is that before or after you and the rest of the forest creatures scream your brains out?

S.D.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I never claimed there was. I was simply discussing with Moonliner where I draw the line on religious displays on public property.

Fair enough, and you're right; however, it's sort of an irrelvant point since the government, in this particular case, did not fund the display.

In other words, this stated position sort of taints the discussion as a red herring; no?

Question: When has the government - local, state, or federal - ever funded a religious display in contravention of the spirit of 'separation of church and state' (though not a Constitutional measure)!?!

S.D.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm really confused as to why you feel the need to be hostile to me. and I'm not interesting in playing tit-for-tat. You're asking me to defend positions I haven't taken and have for some reason come to a very skewed conclusion about where I stand.

You seem to be pretty emotional about this subject, so I think it's best I step out as I was simply trying to have a discussion.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm really confused as to why you feel the need to be hostile to me. and I'm not interesting in playing tit-for-tat. You're asking me to defend positions I haven't taken and have for some reason come to a very skewed conclusion about where I stand.

You seem to be pretty emotional about this subject, so I think it's best I step out as I was simply trying to have a discussion.

It kind of feeds into my theory on life: Fanatics are hard to talk to no matter what subject or which side they are fanatical about.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm really confused as to why you feel the need to be hostile to me...

Sorry you've interpreted my responses so personally...as none were intended that way. I've been merely replying to that which you state (i.e. your written responses as they've been written and argued based on that and that only...not you "personally").

...and I'm not interesting in playing tit-for-tat.

Neither am I; however, you've made your responses making specific comments about and in contrast to the display 'against' (I use the term losely) the disbelief in religious dogma; that, again forgive me if I am wrong, appears to be in more support of the freedom of religious believers to produce their displays while denying the same freedom to those who are not religious.

You're asking me to defend positions I haven't taken and have for some reason come to a very skewed conclusion about where I stand.

I have skewed nothing as I am merely responding to what you write and post in response to my posts.

Seriously...if you say 'white,' I'm going to say 'black.'

Again, just responding to what you write; nothing more, nothing less. Nothing personal.

You seem to be pretty emotional about this subject...

Not emotional but passionate....which is often misconstrued or incorrectly labeled as being negatively emotional.

...so I think it's best I step out as I was simply trying to have a discussion.

I too was partaking in a "discussion"; but if you deem it necessary to bow out, then I respectfully agree to disagree.

S.D.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

It kind of feeds into my theory on life: Fanatics are hard to talk to no matter what subject or which side they are fanatical about.

True, but I am not fanatical about the subject. Just informed, educated, and well read on it.

In other words, I can effectively debate and hold my own on the topic.

I discuss what I know...NOT I guess or feel; which is what "fanatics" do, yes?

S.D.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

True, but I am not fanatical about the subject. Just informed, educated, and well read on it.

In other words, I can effectively debate and hold my own on the topic.

I discuss what I know...NOT I guess or feel; which is what "fanatics" do, yes?

S.D.

We've gone around a bit, can you refresh me on what "the subject" is?

Are you arguing for the right to post a stupid sign or in support of the silly message on the stupid sign?