Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Two points george,

First, I don't think your example (that of abortion and choice) is an illustration of the separation of church and state. The judicial decision, I don't believe was based on this constitutional violation. I thought it had to do with the right to privacy or some other. I'm not sure about this. However, whether a person decides to kill a zygote doesn't have to do with religion. Some religious people defend their "right to life" claims on religious grounds, but that doesn't make it a religious issue. So Roe v. Wade wasn't about the separation of church and state. Or I don't think it was, tell me, scholars if I'm wrong about this, because if I am, then it's a good example.

And second, But let's suppose we do come up with a good example of what you call "a driving out of values, merely derivable from religion . . . in the name of separation of church and state." (Can anyone think of one? How about the removal from the court house of the Ten Commandments statue in whatever southern state it is on the grounds of separation. That one would do.) You are still saying, and I'd like you to respond to this point if you will........you're saying that a belief in the principle of separation of church and state is a religion. And it is not. There are lots of Christians who believe in this constitutional guarantee. This is purely a question of whether it is fair for one group to force their religion on another, just because they are the dominate group. Let's take the "one nation under God" thing. We are one nation, but we are not all "under God." There are all kinds of people in this nation and we each have our own Gods, those of our choosing. Is it fair, in a public place, a place intended for all the citizens of this nation to use......... is it fair for there to be any religious symbols displayed? Or in a pledge of allegiance, for all citizens to claim as their own, is it fair for only some citizen's God to be represented? I don't believe it is. This is my belief, but it is not my religion. We all have many beliefs, as you point out which are institutionalized by our laws and the constitution. Some are less controversial and so are not defined as a religious belief. Because this particular Constitutional guarantee has to do with religion does not make it religious. This is an important distinction, I believe. It is indeed quite the opposite. It is intended as a guarantee that no group, no matter how dominate, subversive or otherwise influential will be allowed to impose their religion on others.

Your claim that "secular humanists" are using the constitution as a way to impose secular humanism on others is not valid. You are putting words into other people's mouths. People who agree with this constitutional amendment are seeking to uphold it. Some of the people who seek to uphold it are secular humanists, some are atheists, some agnostics and some Christians, etc. It's possible that your view that secular humanists are the only ones seeking to uphold this protection may be because they are the ones who are in need of the protection it offers at the present time. They are seeking protection from coercion, not to impose their religion on others. But suppose a world in which secular humanism becomes the dominate religion, then Christians will be screaming bloody murder about the separation of church and state. You cannot equate belief in a principle with belief in a religion. They are not the same.

0 Replies

The line, yes. That is a matter of personal conscience. And as we approach a line that is agreed upon by many, then we don't have a problem anymore because it's easy to agree upon and abide by a law with which everyone agrees. So I don't think we're must in danger about live babies being killed. Most of us would agree that it's wrong. This is a very difficult decision for a woman to make. It's not a simple decision. Deciding whether to kill another human being is a miserable decision to have to make. But sometimes it comes down to that. Sometimes it comes down to self defense.

This also is not really a religious question. Those who seek to legislate a woman's right to choose and do so on religious grounds are, I agree with Blatham, engaging in a religiously coercive act. However, on this point, I would like to point out to Blatham that both sides are trying to impose their view. Those of us who believe in the right to choose are imposing something that those who do not are against. We are making it possible for some women to kill their unborn babies for the reasons they consider to be important and the anti-abortion folks are very upset about this fact. We are all trying to elect those leaders who will uphold our own point of view. In that sense we're all trying to impose our point of view on the others. But it's not about imposing a religion, although many religious people are involved in the effort. It's about whether we agree with the SC decision. It's those of us who believe it's a matter of a "right to privacy" vs. those of us who do not. The Supreme Court said it was a matter of a Constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. That's the judgement they made at the time. This and other decisions have clarified, in a dramatic way, how the courts are indeed influenced by politics. And it's the very way in which our courts should be influenced by the will of the people. My problem lately is that there is a group of republicans, currently in power in the White House and the Congress, who have run their campaigns with this agenda as a top priority. And they have not been honest about it. They meet and plan in secrecy. (Yes, a right wing conspiracy.) This has gone beyond "good politics," this is deliberate deception. In this way they have robed the American people of a chance to vote for those leaders who will appoint judges to the courts who will uphold those principles the majority of the people want upheld. This is subversion. And I think we should get it out in the open. It is not the secularists who seek to subvert the political process, it is the fundamentalists who are doing this very thing.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Maligar, I didn't say abortion wasn't killing. It is. What else would it be, silly?

I know exactly what you said:

maliagar wrote:

lola wrote:
The abortion controversy is not about killing.
Oh yes it is!!!! One side of the controversy would like to ignore this very simple fact, and turn it into something else to confuse the clueless and get away with murder. But the issue is very much about killing a new human being that is developing in a woman's womb...

You see: I understood perfectly.

Quote:

It's about one group of people trying to influence everyone else about who should be killed and for what reasons.

That's right. Wealthy North Atlantic abortionists are trying to influence everybody else in the world. They want us to change traditional understandings of familiy, reproduction, and love, so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their own irresponsible actions. The price? Innocent human life.

Quote:

It's always been interesting to me that those who disapprove of abortion are almost always the same folks who like to kill for all the other reasons.

It is equally interesting to see pro-abortionists oppose the death penalty. But the really interesting thing is that abortion and the death penalty are two very different things (at least for those who have their eyes open):

- Abortion ends the life of a totally INNOCENT and DEFENSELESS human being that is absolutely SUBJECT to the whims of ONE person alone.

- The death penalty has been traditionally seen as a lesser EVIL applied to the GUILTY of specially GRAVE CRIMES after a careful JUDICIAL PROCESS involving a legal DEFENSE, appeal instances, pardon possibilities, and DUE PROCESS under the LAW.

I'm sure abortion advocates wouldn't want a similar legal process with a lawyer representing the rights of the unborn... Would you?

Ergo, abortion and the death penalty are two very different things (for those who care about the truth).

Quote:

First a person is required to be born...

Do you complain about the fact that you were required to be born?

Quote:

...then they're pushed around, often abused and otherwise caused pain...

Should your parents have aborted you to free you from pain and discomfort?

Quote:

If those who believe in this "right to life" business are really concerned about stopping the killing, why don't they worry about all those babies who die of starvation or disease?

Pure demagoguery. Unless you tell me that you actively "worry" and work for all those unfortunate death-row inmates. Abortion advocates are not thinking in poor babies but in the suburban comforts of a hedonistic culture... [Guess who really does something about those poor babies that you're so worried about... Not the abortionists, but Catholic nuns all over the world...]

Quote:

Why don't they make sure birth control is readily available to all?

A few questions for you to think about: Since the pill and condoms became widely available even in high schools,

1. Did the number of unwanted pregnancies go down or up?

2. Did the number of "liberated" single mothers go down or up?

3. Did the number of abortions go down or up?

WHAT IS THE REAL IMPACT OF FREE DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACEPTIVES? WHY?

Quote:

I vote pro-choice (which is really pro-life as well).

Seems to me that you're very confused.

Quote:

Abortion isn't really about middle class Americans either. We'll always be able to get an abortion if we make that very difficult decision.

Oh, yes. Abortion is about a comfortable, hedonistic lifestyle that doesn't care about who it kills to preserve "a way of life".

Quote:

It's really an issue for poor Americans and even more so for those in third world countries whose children starve and die of deceases...

Sorry, but in "those" countries poor people have more respect for the unborn than in the wealthier parts of the world.

:wink:

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

My morals and values don't come form the Judeo-Christian, etc. heritage.

That's an empirical question. We would have to study your understanding of such concepts as "person", "freedom", "justice", "good", "evil", "rights", "duties", "time", "history", "progress", etc.

And my guess is this: Unless you grew in some isolated village somewhere in Africa or Asia, you're values have an overwhelming chance of coming from the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage (whether you're aware of it or not).

Quote:

They come from my struggle to understand and answer basic questions about the value of life and how to life it as well as possible with others.

And should I assume that this struggle took place in a vacuum, isolated from cultural influences?

Quote:

Christianity has never provided me with anything other than a judgemental group of people to deal with while I live my moral and full of values life.

Sorry, but I would bet that Christianity has provided you with much more than you're willing to give it credit for.

Quote:

We each make our own morals by the decisions we make.

Wrong. (Unless, of course, you were created out of mud in some isolated jungle) A little bit of historical and cultural awareness and self-awareness would help you understand some very fundamental things...

:wink:

0 Replies

Maliagar,

Your post above is an excellent demonstration of what IMO is so wrong with the arguments of many religious zealots. (And zealots of all kinds.) You are quick to point out one instance in which I misunderstood your meaning and didn't ask you to clarify. You are correct about that and for that I apologize. But you have told me what I think and feel, what I really mean by what I say (not to mention these "wealthy North Atlantic abortionists" and "abortion advocates" which is not btw the same as those who support a woman's right to choose, who would advocate for abortion if the choice could be made?) numerous times in your post.

First, let me make it clear that I have very little idea about what you think and feel, I can only take your word for what you tell me about that. So you're stuck, like the rest of us mortal human beings, with the reality that you must take my word for what's going on in my own mind, or suffer under the delusion that you can read my mind. The same goes for both of us regarding North Atlantic abortionists and these lurking "abortion advocates" (of which I have never met not even one). You have no idea, and can't have what is in the mind of abortion advocates. For one thing, there's the issue I mentioned about lacking mind reading capabilities. And for another, there are many pro-choice people, each with their own reasons. So unless you want to confirm what many of us may likely think already, that you're a deluded lunatic who believes he has magical powers, you will have to stop making arguments based on your assumptions about the intentions of others.

Now, I assume that both sides or at least most people on both sides of this question are trying to do what they feel is best, moral or right. I have no right nor any ability to know the motivations of others (not without asking them) so I'm assuming your intentions are good ones. And I assume that these "wealthy North Atlantic abortionists" (is it just the wealthy ones or all abortionists whose motives you impugn?) and your hypothesized "abortion advocates" have good intentions as well. Most of the people I've talked to about this subject on both sides have explained what they consider to be very good reasons for their beliefs and are trying to do what they think is best. So let's not get snotty about each other's intentions. We seem to agree that the issue is about one group trying to influence the other. Am I correct in this assumption? You did say, "that's right" in response to my statement which you quoted. And we seem to agree that abortion is killing. So we've no problem there.

On your "guilt or innocence" point......I'm not talking about guilt and/or innocence in the sense of breaking the law. There is that technical point, and it's valid. But I'm talking about the conditions under which people are born and try to grow. I'm not saying that every child that is unwanted becomes a criminal or murderer. But growing up unwanted or in a severely deprived environment does affect a person's ability to make reasonable and rational judgements and many murderers, if not all have been abused themselves in one way or another. Please do not tell me that I condone murder for any reason, I'm simply saying that violence and deprivation breed violence and deprivation. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we're talking about a question of when killing is helpful or necessary and when it's not. Not about whether killing is sometimes justified or necessary. It's a matter of when and why, not whether. You see it as necessary under some circumstances and I see it as necessary under others, unfortunately we don't agree on which is which. And we both have our reasons. And we're not going to convince each other, so let's stop trying. OK?

Now on those other points of yours. Do I complain about being born? No, I do not. My life is very cushy and I'm having a marvelous time. So why would I complain? Even though I'm told by my parents that they intended to abort me, but they somehow didn't get around to it. (Obviously they were ambivalent about it and having me won out.) But if they had, I wouldn't know it so I wouldn't care. And no one would know me, so they wouldn't care either.

As far as the hedonistic culture.........what's so bad about hedonism? What do you have a prejudice against us hedonists?

Now about my demagoguery........you didn't really address my point about the starving and miserable babies in third world countries. You just called me a name. Isn't there a name for that kind of fallacious reasoning? Well, it's not reasoning at all, is it?

And the poor Catholic nuns. I could say that's demagoguery on your part, but since I'd be assuming that you do nothing to help these poor masochistic ladies in their self assigned task of not only inflicting their own pain, but of running about making others feel guilty, and I can't make that assumption, I won't.

As far as birth control........I'm still not referring to cute little privileged teenagers in this country who get pregnant. Those of us who have done so (gotten pregnant when we were teenagers) have done so for our own complicated reasons. I've never had an abortion, but I don't condemn those who have. I'm still talking mostly about the poor, underprivileged and third world country people. The privileged can always obtain an abortion and will be little effected by a change in the laws. It will be those who will take drastic measures and die because they were forced to have an abortion under unsanitary circumstances. I'm really talking about the U.S. withdrawing aid for those countries who offer birth control or abortion services to the poor. (Remember this was a niffy little deal made by the good ole Pope himself and Ronald Reagan? This was an unconscionable act)

You think I'm confused and I think you are. So that's a good way to keep it.

0 Replies

Too many words, too little substance. Let's try to focus:

Lola wrote:

I have very little idea about what you think and feel, I can only take your word for what you tell me about that. ... Now, I assume that ... at least most people on both sides of this question are trying to do what they feel is best, moral or right.

Excuse me??? So you assume things... right?

Quote:

You have no idea, and can't have what is in the mind of abortion advocates.

If they remained silent, I wouldn't have any idea. But they are very vocal. :wink:

Quote:

there are many pro-choice people, each with their own reasons.

People may have their own subjective reasons. But the objective issue is: Abortion kills an innocent human being just because he or she is inconvenient for someone. If this is wrong, the subjective circumstances of John Smith or Jane Doe are comparatively minor. I may have a "good" subjective reason for raping (excuse me: making love to) a girl that I like. But rape is rape, right?

Quote:

And I assume that... "abortion advocates" have good intentions as well.

I'm sure you see that our analysis cannot stop at the point of "assuming" that everybody has "good" intentions. Hitler thought his intentions were "good". We need to see if the intentions are objectively good, and only secondarily if people really have them. But if the action is objectively wrong, then the misguided intentions of people only matter when we try to assess their culpability. If something is objectively wrong, it should be avoided.

Quote:

Most of the people I've talked to about this subject on both sides have explained what they consider to be very good reasons for their beliefs and are trying to do what they think is best.

Please don't be this naive. Everybody thinks they are great people. The problem is, sometimes they are not (Hitler).

Quote:

We seem to agree that the issue is about one group trying to influence the other. Am I correct in this assumption? You did say, "that's right" in response to my statement which you quoted.

So it is not an assumption anymore. I said it. We agree.

Quote:

But growing up unwanted or in a severely deprived environment does affect a person's ability to make reasonable and rational judgements ...

There are many conditions and evironments that "affect" our ability to make reasonable judgments. Certain types of families, certain types of influences, certain types of wealth and of expectations... Do you really think we can predict outcomes? And even if we could, does it give us the right to kill future "failures"? (see Minority Report)

Quote:

I'm simply saying that violence and deprivation breed violence and deprivation.

Yeah. And we should get rid of violent, deprived, degenerate, types... right? You know how this sounds like???

Quote:

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we're talking about a question of when killing is helpful or necessary and when it's not.

What is the difference between your views and Nazism?

Quote:

Not about whether killing is sometimes justified or necessary. It's a matter of when and why, not whether.

You need a more systematic approach to this. Are you familiar with the distinction "good" and "evil"? What about the distinction between bigger and lesser evils? Is abortion a lesser evil? Lesser than what? If you don't know the soul (or thoughts or feelings) of a person, can you claim to know their future? Is a poor baby bound to be a criminal? Is that your "assumption"?

Quote:

You see it as necessary under some circumstances and I see it as necessary under others, unfortunately we don't agree on which is which.

You are now guessing my position. I just explained the different rationales for the death penalty and abortion. I didn't take a personal position on the death penalty.

Now, you seem to believe that the choice between circumstances is purely arbitrary. Wrong. Someone could come up and claim that, under the circumstances, we should kill you. Why would anybody oppose him?

Quote:

And we both have our reasons. And we're not going to convince each other, so let's stop trying. OK?

And you think this is REASONABLE? Laughing

Basically what you're saying is: Argument and reason are useless. I've made my choice. It is legitimate because it is MINE (not because it is truth, 'cause I don't care about it). Don't question it. Don't assess its truth value. Let's just stop talking, let's stop arguing, let's just shut up. Your attitude leads to the logic of power... The more powerful are able to get away with what they want just because...

Quote:

Do I complain about being born? No, I do not. My life is very cushy and I'm having a marvelous time.

And if you were not having a good time?

Quote:

Even though I'm told by my parents that they intended to abort me, but they somehow didn't get around to it....

Are you happy about it?

Quote:

if they had, I wouldn't know it so I wouldn't care.

How do you know this?

Quote:

What do you have a prejudice against us hedonists?

Yes, I'm very prejudiced, biased, and bigoted. :wink:

It would be interesting if you had noticed my key points and discussed them. Here they are again, for you to ponder:

Quote:

- Abortion ends the life of a totally INNOCENT and DEFENSELESS human being that is absolutely SUBJECT to the whims of ONE person alone.

- The death penalty has been traditionally seen as a lesser EVIL applied to the GUILTY of specially GRAVE CRIMES after a careful JUDICIAL PROCESS involving a legal DEFENSE, appeal instances, pardon possibilities, and DUE PROCESS under the LAW.

and...

Quote:

A few questions for you to think about: Since the pill and condoms became widely available even in high schools,

1. Did the number of unwanted pregnancies go down or up?

2. Did the number of "liberated" single mothers go down or up?

3. Did the number of abortions go down or up?

WHAT IS THE REAL IMPACT OF FREE DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACEPTIVES? WHY?

and....

Quote:

Unless you grew in some isolated village somewhere in Africa or Asia, you're values have an overwhelming chance of coming from the Judeo-Christian, Greco-Roman heritage (whether you're aware of it or not).

A little bit of historical and cultural awareness and self-awareness would help you understand some very fundamental things...

0 Replies

Maligar,

It is very tempting for me to continue this entirely enjoyable sadomasochistic exercise with you. This kind of hedonism is my kind of fun. I'm having a marvelous time, really. We're both so willing. But I am unfortunately involved in writing some papers for my graduation and that exercise is not only interesting, but it has a long term benefit as well. Maybe when I'm all done, in two or three weeks, there'll be another discussion that heats up enough..........we can get out our whips and chains and have at it with abandon. Or maybe we can just turn up the flames on this one again, we'll see. So please don't forget me, darlin.........just think of me as on sabbatical. :wink:

0 Replies

Lola,

I did put forward some aspects of the abortion debate as an example of what I regard as improper use of church state separation to shut out some people with a religious based view from aspects of the political debate and even roles in public office. I did concede the example was imperfect , and, as you correctly point out, the Roe vs Wade decision was made on a different basis - that of an assumed right to privacy.

Among other things I had in mind the recent criticism by Sen Schumer and others of the suitability of a nominee for the Federal District court on the basis that his admitted religious views (in this case Catholic and anti abortion) rendered him unsuitable for the Judicial appointment to which he had been nominated. The nominee (Prior of Alabama) affirmed his intent to enforce the law as written and cited examples of this in his current role as state attorney general. This was viewed as insufficient by the judiciary committee and the nomination is stalled.

I also suggested that both religious and non religious people see moral and ethical issues in numerous very difficult public policy issues such as abortion. I find it unfair that the views of people motivated by religious belief are often seen as excluded from political expression while similar or equivalent positions of people motivated by other secular ethical or moral principles are somehow ok.

The furor over the statuary involving the Ten Commandments is in my view a bit of a side show. I do find it odd that we can decorate our public buildings with figures of Roman and Greek gods, but recoil in horror over any representation of Judaeo-Christian symbols. However I believe it is merely provocative to force this issue as Judge Moore is doing - and little good will come of it. Many believe that a reference to the existence of God is as implicit in the constitution as it is explicit in the declaration of Independence. Manifestations of this include the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of allegiance and others as well. I believe this is good so long as it does not offend people. We should not force such forms of expression on anyone. Nor should we forbid them for those who wish to do so.

0 Replies

"...the recent criticism by Sen Schumer and others of the suitability of a nominee for the Federal District court on the basis that his admitted religious views (in this case Catholic and anti abortion) rendered him unsuitable for the Judicial appointment ..."

George -- can you come up with an actual quote from Schumer? I've just done a scan of the Washington Times, HillNews, and various other accounts of the Democrats' decision to filibuster Pryor, and find no quote from Schumer to that effect. Quite to the contrary -- the Republicans tried very hard (and obviously succeeded with you!) to paint the filibuster as anti-Catholic, yet there are no statements that I can find from a Democrat that a Catholic should not become a Federal judge. Kindly link to a quote.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Lola,

The furor over the statuary involving the Ten Commandments is in my view a bit of a side show. I do find it odd that we can decorate our public buildings with figures of Roman and Greek gods, but recoil in horror over any representation of Judaeo-Christian symbols. However I believe it is merely provocative to force this issue as Judge Moore is doing - and little good will come of it.

I agree, george that very little good will come of it. From my perspective, many of us "recoil in horror" over these Christian symbols because they represent to us the very kind of behavior and attitude being demonstrated by Judge Moore. Those of us who grew up with this coercive, self-righteous attitude are more likely to be horrified by it than others.

0 Replies

Judge Moore has become a pathetic character in all this -- dug himself a hole and jumped in and can't get out. It is odd about "Greek gods." Good point. However they are a) better looking, b) more literate and interesting, and c) more fun than anything coming out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. So they're okay with me! An-n-n-n-d, they're mostly NAKED!

0 Replies

Naked is good, yes, I agree, Tartarin. But (getting back to thread topic -- laugh) naked in Mel's movie is probably not of the erotic type. Gore and blood is not my thing.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's right. Wealthy North Atlantic abortionists are trying to influence everybody else in the world. They want us to change traditional understandings of familiy, reproduction, and love, so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their own irresponsible actions. The price? Innocent human life.

This may be the dumbest paragraph written anywhere in the world today.

0 Replies

Forgive me, but I detect in the last three posts from Tartarin. Lola, and Blatham, some of the same intolerance which you apparently associate with Judge Moore.

Statuary apart, it would be difficult to argue that Hellenic culture was significantly better than Judaeo Christian. Mockery flatters no one. The "dumbness" of the cited paragraph arises only out of a profound difference in the critic's point of view.

0 Replies

george,

I still think you're confusing belief in a principle (separation of ch and st) with a religious belief. They are not the same. Just because secular humanists, whoever they are, support this guarantee in the Constitution, doesn't make it a part of their religion. Like it or not, the founding fathers had personal experience and knew about an injudice that takes place when religion is mixed up with government. And they believed strongly, apparently that it should be avoided, thus this guarantee. I'm not a secular humanist. I'm an atheist, so I think this part of the Constitution is pretty niffty myself.

0 Replies

Anyone seen any classic architectural buildings erected lately? With Roman and Greek statues?
Why not put the Ten Commandments out in front of the Capital and the White House? (Although Dubya who tries to emulate Jesus himself would not object). Applying that to Mel Gibson, why not leave what occurred at the Crucifixion to each individual's concept of it. Gibson has to use his toys (special effects and fake blood) to display it at its goriest best. It's because he presumes nobody has the imagination to envision the Crucifixion in their own mind. What he's done is the work of the ultimate egotist.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

Judge Moore has become a pathetic character in all this...

Good for Judge Moore!

Tartarin wrote:

It is odd about "Greek gods."

"Odd"???? It's telling. It's symbolic.

Quote:

However they are a) better looking, b) more literate and interesting, and c) more fun than anything coming out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. So they're okay with me! An-n-n-n-d, they're mostly NAKED!

Powerful argument... Rolling Eyes

:wink:

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I detect in the last three posts from Tartarin. Lola, and Blatham, some of the same intolerance which you apparently associate with Judge Moore.

George, this point has been raised time after time, by you, me, and others, to no avail. Think about it: Which faith has a stronger and longer tradition of argument and evidence? The Judeo-Christian tradition? Or today's popular version of secularism-hedonism for the masses?

Quote:

The "dumbness" of the cited paragraph arises only out of a profound difference in the critic's point of view.

A "profound difference" that finds no other way of expressing itself than a single, limited, meaningless, adjective. Rolling Eyes

This mode of "argumentation" tells a lot for those who pay attention.

:wink:

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

you're confusing belief in a principle (separation of ch and st) with a religious belief. They are not the same.

Could you explain why?

Quote:

the founding fathers had personal experience and knew about an injudice that takes place when religion is mixed up with government.

When the Constitution was put together, several states had ESTABLISHED CHURCHES.

Quote:

I'm not a secular humanist. I'm an atheist...

What's the difference?

:wink:

0 Replies

Maligar,

I told you I don't have time right now for your ring around the rosy stuff. I'm too busy with my secular hedonism. You do not listen to arguments and think about it as george does. So any exchange we'll have is an exercise in, as I said before, sadomasochism. Later, when I have nothing else better to do. Not now.

0 Replies

Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know