Show me in the Constitution where a religios group has rights.

“I’m not sure that allowing Muslims to hand out religious materials in the same spaces where Christians do so is equivalent to allowing someone to yell “fire”in a crowded movie theater.”

Not the comparison I made.

“As for the GW question: I’m reading refereed scientific journals dedicated to the issue. I agree that it’s politicized, but so are a lot of things (politics, for example) but if one works hard to determine valid sources, real knowledge is possible.”

“Real knowledge” (whatevere that is) has yet to come to the forefront, and that’s the point. I’ve yet to see a valid source, not tainted by either the oil industry or the GW industry. Thus, the issue is politicized.

The idea that it isn’t reminds me of the response of people who look at the problems between Israel and Palestine, for example, and say “I have no opinion because those two have been fighting for thousands of years.”Just because an issue is complicated or politicized doesn’t make it entirely opaque.

Oh, I have an opinion, and I’ve stated it clearly. It is the only valid position to take at this point. To side without clear cut non-tainted facts does nothing but to promote “left” or “right”, “liberal” or “conservative”, “Republican” or “Democrat” idealogies.

It is nothing more than a bunch of idealouges clammering for moneymat this point.

As for Israel/Palestine, that is another UN created mess. Both sides are at equal fault at this point in time for where they are at. Both are terrorist, and thus I refuse to side with either of them, as I do not want that kind of blood on my hands. My conscience will not allow it.

Correct.

I guess that we simply disagree. I believe that every religious group should have equal rights, regardless of the whims of the community.

It is the same reason why we have free speech, but one isn’t allowed to yell “fire”in a movie theatre. When the excersise of one right directly interferes with the right of another.

I’m not sure that allowing Muslims to hand out religious materials in the same spaces where Christians do so is equivalent to allowing someone to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

As for the GW question: I’m reading refereed scientific journals dedicated to the issue. I agree that it’s politicized, but so are a lot of things (politics, for example) but if one works hard to determine valid sources, real knowledge is possible. The idea that it isn’t reminds me of the response of people who look at the problems between Israel and Palestine, for example, and say “I have no opinion because those two have been fighting for thousands of years.” Just because an issue is complicated or politicized doesn’t make it entirely opaque.

51.

Funniest thing I’ve ever read here.

Correct.

I wonder where you draw the line between a community’s right to forbid a certain practice and what you call “reasonably interfere with the practice of a person’s individual religion.”It seems conveniently vague.

My definition is no less vague than what has previosly been ruled upon by the courts. It is the same reason why we have free speech, but one isn’t allowed to yell “fire” in a movie theatre. When the excersise of one right directly interferes with the right of another.

I’m wondering because so many Christians have argued that proselytizing is a fundamental part of their religion; indeed, this has been one of the main arguments for allowing religious speech to continue in schools, the military, etc (they’re deriving their arguments from the gospel of Matthew: “Go to all the nations and make disciples. Baptize them and teach them my commands.”). Presumably, other religions could make the same claims.”

I don’t care what religions think their rights are- I care what the Constitutition defines our rights as being.

“That’s fine; as long as you realize that sitting around doing nothing (whatever you believe) doesn’t give you the moral high ground. A consciousness of inauthenticity is, unfortunately, not the same thing as an authentic consciousness.”

A cleverly inane back-handed slap. Imply that I do nothing- that’s fine. Evidently you follow the old addage “Do something, even if it’s wrong.”

I don’t.

As far as having the moral high ground, I am firmly entrenched when it comes to this issue. I refuse to rally with the politico of the day simply to support a general idealogy. I will examine each issue and each side with a sceptically opened mind, being as objecytive as possible.

THAT is what gives me the moral high ground.

Do you two ever read anything/make an argumet/think? Basically you both stick to one or two line posts in which you write things like “Kennedy’s a liar,” “the left hates america,” or “global warming is a fraud.” You never offer anything resembling support for your positions because you assume, I guess, that everyone else is as poorly informed as you. Basically, you’re snowy egret with a spell-check.

Here’s an idea: read a book for a change (nothing by Ann Coulter, or pop-up); or maybe take a night class. Come back to the site a couple months from now and wow everyone with how much you’ve developed.

Christ, I obviously disagree with Ted, FAO, and Peejz 90% of the time (actually, probably only 85% with Ted) but I recognize that they’re actually arguing and not just calling names and repeating the same old barely-bumper-sticker-worthy chants.

Try it sometime. Like with the “humans cause Global Warming” scam/religion/hoax.

So, you don’t actually pay attention to the issues. If it comes from the left, you just close your eyes and reject it. This explains a lot.

a. stupid
b. another effort in the continuing series to undermine and destroy traditional America
c. inspired at the core by Communist boll weevils here in America

This has been accurate time and time again. Nothing personal, it just is what I have learned on the job over 40+ years of studying the devolution of American society.