Momma Angel wrote:Setanta,
Drewdad seems to understand what I am saying. You don't. You seem to keep putting motives to what I say.
Did you fail to read the last post i addressed to you?
Quote:Can't you just think of it in the most simplest of terms? That is what I have been trying to get it down to and you and others keep giving me all these complicated rebuttals.
When you reduce an argument to simple terms
which are a false representation of the argument, you are exhibiting the fallacy of reduction to absurdity. That is what you have been doing here. You continue to avoid describing the point at which you no longer accept separation of chruch and state. You continue to avoid answering the question of how freedom from religion in any way infringes on your free exercise of religion. I submit that you attempt to construe this as a simple difference of preferences because you either cannot or will not answer those two questions. The positions are not equivalent.
Quote:We are all practicing democracy by voting.
Ostensibly--i won't burden this thread by pointing out that we do not live in a demoncracy, but rather in a democratic republic. There are profound differences in those two systems of government.
Quote:What do you base your vote on? (Don't really want an answer to that.)
Don't play stupid games--don't throw out questions to which you don't want answers. I base my vote on my best judgment
and the laws which constitute the social contract.
Quote:Don't you base your vote on what you feel is the right thing to do?
Not necessarily--there are many things which i consider harmless which are illegal. There are many things which i consider harmful which are legal. I accept that condition, and my vote on any issue or for any office is conditioned by that understanding. If your vote is rendered on such a simplistic basis, you are doing your society a disservice.
Quote:Do I complain to you about what you base your vote on?
I wouldn't care if you did. I have nowhere complained of the basis upon which you vote--this is a strawman.
Quote:First of all, I have no idea what you base your vote on, if in fact, you even do vote, and it's none of my business what your reasons are.
That's just as well, since you have never displayed in these fora the intellectual equipment necessary to understand the basis upon which i view the social contract and my part in it. Perhaps you find that statement offensive--i hope so, it was in retaliation for your snotty comment about whether in fact i do vote. You get out of such discussions what you put into them.
Quote:That's called democracy.
No, by no stretch of the imagination is that a working definition of democracy.
Quote:That's called your legal right.
No, that
is my legal right.
Quote:That's called your civil right.
No, that
is a civil right which i enjoy.
Quote:You lobby, whether publicly or in these forums, for what you want. PERIOD. Why is that so very hard to grasp?
It's not hard to grasp that you are trying to wiggle out of a tight spot by reducing this argument to the absurd proposition that the imposition of religion in public is a preference equivalent to an objection to such imposition. However, this is not the case. This is the heart of your attempt to reduce this debate to an absurdity.
