Ten Commandments before Supreme Court

[Stephen Joseph 0]

FYI (aka Mike, you're wrong about what monotheism means)

 

Monotheism (from the Greek monos "only", and theos "god") is a word coined in comparatively modern times to designate belief in the one supreme God, the Creator and Lord of the world, the eternal Spirit, All-powerful, All-wise, and All-good, the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, the Source of our happiness and perfection. It is opposed to Polytheism, which is belief in more gods than one, and to Atheism, which is disbelief in any deity whatsoever. In contrast with Deism, it is the recognition of God's presence and activity in every part of creation. In contrast with Pantheism, it is belief in a God of conscious freedom, distinct from the physical world. Both Deism and Pantheism are religious philosophies rather than religions.

 

On the other hand, Monotheism, like Polytheism, is a term applying primarily to a concrete system of religion. The grounds of reason underlying monotheism have already been set forth in the article GOD. These grounds enable the inquiring mind to recognize the existence of God as a morally certain truth. Its reasonableness acquires still greater force from the positive data associated with the revelation of Christianity. (See REVELATION.)

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

[Guest MikeSC]

FYI (aka Mike, you're wrong about what monotheism means)

 

Monotheism (from the Greek monos "only", and theos "god") is a word coined in comparatively modern times to designate belief in the one supreme God, the Creator and Lord of the world, the eternal Spirit, All-powerful, All-wise, and All-good, the Rewarder of good and the Punisher of evil, the Source of our happiness and perfection. It is opposed to Polytheism, which is belief in more gods than one, and to Atheism, which is disbelief in any deity whatsoever. In contrast with Deism, it is the recognition of God's presence and activity in every part of creation. In contrast with Pantheism, it is belief in a God of conscious freedom, distinct from the physical world. Both Deism and Pantheism are religious philosophies rather than religions.

 

On the other hand, Monotheism, like Polytheism, is a term applying primarily to a concrete system of religion. The grounds of reason underlying monotheism have already been set forth in the article GOD. These grounds enable the inquiring mind to recognize the existence of God as a morally certain truth. Its reasonableness acquires still greater force from the positive data associated with the revelation of Christianity. (See REVELATION.)

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10499a.htm

Thing is, monotheism is such a ridiculously broad category that it is nigh useless.

 

And there is still no benefit any religion receives from the government. There is no money. There is no requirement that one must worship.

 

People need to eventually stop being petty little bitches. For example, I don't smoke --- but I sure as hell don't want to see smoking banned in restaurants. I seldom drink --- you don't see me advocating banning alcohol (and alcohol causes more problems than religion). I don't smoke pot, but I don't much like it's illegality. I have no desire to own a gun, but you won't find a more pro-gun individual than myself.

 

People want tolerance for their views --- but seldom practice tolerance for anybody else's.

Serious question: how long does it take for paper to go from used->recycled->"new" paper compared to how long it take to plant a tree & then harvest it for paper (and whatever else)? I'd imagine it'd take at least 20 years (that's a guess on my part, could be more/less [i'd bet on more]) for a tree to grow to the point that it's be suitable to be harvested. In that time, how much recycled paper could be generated (and regenerated)?

 

And how much does the recycling process cost, compared to: buying trees, planting them, cutting them down, transporting them, and then processing them into paper (among other things)?

I recommend you check out Pen & Teller Bullshit, Season 1 where they do a lengthy show on just that topic. You have to pay people to sort out the recycling trash, you have to treat it, you have to prepare it for re-use.

 

It is economically disadvantageous to recycle paper.

-=Mike

...Suffice to say, paper companies CONSTANTLY replant trees (something far less developed groups do) and use the trees available while allowing newer ones to grow. It's poor business to not do so.

[SuperJerk 0]

Thing is, monotheism is such a ridiculously broad category that it is nigh useless.

 

Just how many montheistic religions do you think there are?

 

And there is still no benefit any religion receives from the government. There is no money.

 

Bush Administration gives money to faith-based charities, and allows them to get out of following various federal regulations.

[Guest MikeSC]

Thing is, monotheism is such a ridiculously broad category that it is nigh useless.

Just how many montheistic religions do you think there are?

Catholicism

Methodism

Baptism

Southern Baptism

Unitarianism

Mormonism

Presbyterianism

Roman Orthodoxy

Greek Orthodoxy

Reformist Judaism

Orthodox Judaism

Wahhabist Islam

Nation of Islam

Islam

Christian Science

 

And that is just off the top of my head. I churn out quite a few more, if you'd like.

And there is still no benefit any religion receives from the government. There is no money.

Bush Administration gives money to faith-based charities, and allows them to get out of following various federal regulations.

Oh lord, you cannot possibly be serious.

 

They also give money to organizations that promote a holocaust, such as Planned Parenthood.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Thing is, monotheism is such a ridiculously broad category that it is nigh useless.

Just how many montheistic religions do you think there are?

Catholicism

Methodism

Baptism

Southern Baptism

Unitarianism

Mormonism

Presbyterianism

Roman Orthodoxy

Greek Orthodoxy

Reformist Judaism

Orthodox Judaism

Wahhabist Islam

Nation of Islam

Islam

Christian Science

 

You just counted different branches and denominations as completely separate religions. Honestly, can Baptism and Southern Baptism really be considered different religions? Or Nation of Islam (an American organization) a religion separate from Islam? You listed a crapload of Protestant denominations, but wouldn't all of them (along with Catholicism, and Roman and Greek Orthodoxy) really be parts of the religion of Christianity?

 

By my count, you were only able to come up with 3 monotheistic religions. You have forms of Christianity on your list 10 times, Judaism 2 times, and Islam 3 times.

 

They also give money to organizations that promote a holocaust, such as Planned Parenthood.

 

Whether or not abortion is murder is a discussion for another time. Having said that, whatever aid our government gives Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with Bush's willingness to give religious groups federal money without having to meet the same regulations that secular groups must. Double standard?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

We should really have a seperate discussion for the environmentalism stuff. I think we could get some interesting opinions out of it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

organizations that promote a holocaust, such as Planned Parenthood.

 

AHHHH!!! Over half of our country is in favor of a holocaust!

[Guest MikeSC]

organizations that promote a holocaust, such as Planned Parenthood.

AHHHH!!! Over half of our country is in favor of a holocaust!

Over half of the country supported slavery at one point. Over half supported de jure segregation.

 

And the "over half" number seems to be a little high, considering the success pro-life candidates tend to have.

You just counted different branches and denominations as completely separate religions. Honestly, can Baptism and Southern Baptism really be considered different religions? Or Nation of Islam (an American organization) a religion separate from Islam? You listed a crapload of Protestant denominations, but wouldn't all of them (along with Catholicism, and Roman and Greek Orthodoxy) really be parts of the religion of Christianity?

The fact that you fail to recognize the differences just shows that you don't really know what you're talking about here.

By my count, you were only able to come up with 3 monotheistic religions. You have forms of Christianity on your list 10 times, Judaism 2 times, and Islam 3 times.

Using your logic, psychology and psychiatry would be the EXACT SAME FIELD since they deal with the human mind.

Whether or not abortion is murder is a discussion for another time. Having said that, whatever aid our government gives Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with Bush's willingness to give religious groups federal money without having to meet the same regulations that secular groups must. Double standard?

No, it shows maintaining equal standards with other groups we give money to.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

Hinduists and Taoists both believe in an overriding single God or God-soncept. Confucionism doen't really deal with any higher power at all, and is more a behavioral guide of social ethos than a religion with any direction in terms of a higher power.

So I guess Buddhism is the only major religion left out of our money. And Buddhists are a bit too concerned with ego distruction to worry themselves with something so minor.

You can put Deism up there too. Although their motto might be "In God we don't really trust at all."

 

I still don't see how that motto establishes a state religion or oppresses anyone, but we're obviously never going to agree on that, so whatever.

[SuperJerk 0]

The fact that you fail to recognize the differences just shows that you don't really know what you're talking about here.

Give me a break.

 

Baptism and Southern Baptism are NOT different religions.

 

I know what the hell I'm talking about here. They are just different denominations of the same religion.

 

You MIGHT be able to argue that Catholicsm and Protestantism are separate religions (even if they are both branches of the Christian religion), but to argue that all the different Protestant denominations constitute different religions is simply ridicules. They share a history, customs, and beliefs. They are the same.

 

By my count, you were only able to come up with 3 monotheistic religions. You have forms of Christianity on your list 10 times, Judaism 2 times, and Islam 3 times.

Using your logic, psychology and psychiatry would be the EXACT SAME FIELD since they deal with the human mind.

 

Close, Mike, but no cigar.

 

Actually, its like me arguing that conflict theory and functionalism are both areas of sociology. What you are saying would be closer to me arguing that Christianity and Judaism are the same religion because they deal with the same God, which I am not.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

What I don't get, is that to athiests, the Bible is merely a work of literature, so what is wrong with putting up a monument with some quotes from it? Would you be upset if a judge had put up a passage from Shakespeare?

 

I can see religious people complaining (Christian or otherwise), but I haven't heard of a single complaint from someone who isn't athiest. And they are the only group that has nothing to complain about.

[Guest MikeSC]

The fact that you fail to recognize the differences just shows that you don't really know what you're talking about here.

Give me a break.

 

Baptism and Southern Baptism are NOT different religions.

 

I know what the hell I'm talking about here. They are just different denominations of the same religion.

 

You MIGHT be able to argue that Catholicsm and Protestantism are separate religions (even if they are both branches of the Christian religion), but to argue that all the different Protestant denominations constitute different religions is simply ridicules. They share a history, customs, and beliefs. They are the same.

No, they are NOT the same. They all have different tenets and different beliefs.

 

You really, truly do not know what you're talking about here.

 

And Kahran is right --- if the Bible is just another book to atheists, why be offended? I may hate John Grisham's books with a passion, but I wouldn't make a federal case of it if they were quoted on public ground.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

What I don't get, is that to athiests, the Bible is merely a work of literature, so what is wrong with putting up a monument with some quotes from it? Would you be upset if a judge had put up a passage from Shakespeare?

 

I can see religious people complaining (Christian or otherwise), but I haven't heard of a single complaint from someone who isn't athiest. And they are the only group that has nothing to complain about.

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda. Everyone KNOWS Shakespeare is fiction, but religious people insist that everything in the Bible is fact and should be treated that way.

 

Second, the First Amendment specifically forbids the U.S. government from sponsoring religion, so it is illegal regardless of whether anyone complains or not.

 

Third, you haven't heard of a single complaint from someone who isn't athiest? Then you didn't read the original article at the beginning of this thread.

 

The National Council of Churches said differences within its membership kept the group from taking a position. The Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention have been largely silent.

 

Orthodox Jewish groups filed a brief with the court supporting the displays in principle. But Reform branch leaders, along with the Anti-Defamation League, oppose it.

 

Muslim leaders in the United States have issued no statements on the issue.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.t...ents/index.html

[SuperJerk 0]

The fact that you fail to recognize the differences just shows that you don't really know what you're talking about here.

Give me a break.

 

Baptism and Southern Baptism are NOT different religions.

 

I know what the hell I'm talking about here. They are just different denominations of the same religion.

 

You MIGHT be able to argue that Catholicsm and Protestantism are separate religions (even if they are both branches of the Christian religion), but to argue that all the different Protestant denominations constitute different religions is simply ridicules. They share a history, customs, and beliefs. They are the same.

No, they are NOT the same. They all have different tenets and different beliefs.

 

You really, truly do not know what you're talking about here.

People assume I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not a believer, despite the fact I spent two-thirds of my life as a devout Pentecostal (which is a denomination within the Protestant branch of the Christian religion, by the way).

 

I don't know what you're basing this idea that Christianity deserves to be known as more than one religion on, but the entire point is irrelevant. The First Amendment does specify how many religions the government cannot endorse. It denies the government the ability to endorse any and all of them.

[Guest MikeSC]

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda.

Ah, a "tool of propaganda".

 

For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist?

 

Care to explain that inconsistency?

 

It'd be like me bitching about the appearance of Santa Claus on public ground.

Everyone KNOWS Shakespeare is fiction, but religious people insist that everything in the Bible is fact and should be treated that way.

Um, who are these religious people? Most are quite comfortable that the Bible is not literal truth.

Second, the First Amendment specifically forbids the U.S. government from sponsoring religion, so it is illegal regardless of whether anyone complains or not.

"Sponsoring" would require some tangible benefit to the religion --- something you have yet to demonstrate.

Third, you haven't heard of a single complaint from someone who isn't athiest?  Then you didn't read the original article at the beginning of this thread.

The man in the story, hate to break it to you, is an agnostic. Which is not appreciably different.

 

And, what you quoted consisted of Christian groups not saying one thing or the other, Jewish groups supporting the principle while the ADL doesn't like it.

 

And Muslims don't care.

 

Yup, that is an outcry right there.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

People assume I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not a believer, despite the fact I spent two-thirds of my life as a devout Pentecostal.

 

I don't know what you're basing this idea that Christianity deserves to be known as more than one religion on, but the entire point is irrelevant. The First Amendment does specify how many religions the government cannot endorse. It denies the government the ability to endorse any and all of them.

No, it's not an assumption. It is reality. You REALLY don't know what you're talking about here.

 

And I'm in no mood to waste my time enlightening you.

 

And the moment you can point out some tangible benefit the religions get, then you MIGHT have a 1st Amendment case. Otherwise, you're simply engaging in petty bitching.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You saying over and over that I don't know what I'm talking about in no way constitutes a rational argument. It is a merely an assertion on your part which I have already disproven.

 

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda.

Ah, a "tool of propaganda".

 

For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist?

 

 

I beleive that the Bible exist, I just don't believe that most of it is true.

 

Many atheists argue that the world would be a better place without religion, but I don't agree. That would take away your right to free exercise (which I support unless you try to use the government to do it).

 

"Sponsoring" would require some tangible benefit to the religion --- something you have yet to demonstrate.

 

The tangible benefit of having government sponsored religious displays is that it implies confirmation the validity of their views.

 

Whay I'm curious about is why Christians would even want the Ten Commandments displayed, since you're not supposed to be still living under Old Testament law.

[Guest MikeSC]

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda.

Ah, a "tool of propaganda".

 

For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist?

I beleive that the Bible exist, I just don't believe that most of it is true.

An atheist believes that God does not EXIST. You can't propagandize an entity that does not exist.

 

Again, it'd be comparable to me complaining about Santa Claus on public property. I can't really complain about something that does not exist.

"Sponsoring" would require some tangible benefit to the religion --- something you have yet to demonstrate.

The tangible benefit of having government sponsored religious displays is that it implies confirmation the validity of their views.

Religion does not NEED it, considering how miniscule this "benefit" you claim exists is there. There is nothing the gov't did to benefit them.

 

And since when have people taken the government's word seriously?

Whay I'm curious about is why Christians would even want the Ten Commandments displayed, since you're not supposed to be still living under Old Testament law.

Oooh, TAG~!

 

I don't see why you care, since you don't think God exists.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda.

Ah, a "tool of propaganda".

 

For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist?

I beleive that the Bible exist, I just don't believe that most of it is true.

An atheist believes that God does not EXIST. You can't propagandize an entity that does not exist.

 

Again, it'd be comparable to me complaining about Santa Claus on public property. I can't really complain about something that does not exist.

Religion is what is being propagandized. Atheists do not believe that God exists, but are very aware that religion (the beleif and worship of deities) DOES exist.

 

The major differences between God and Santa Claus:

 

1) No one is telling me if I don't conform to Santa's morality, I'm going to hell.

 

2) No one is killing others over their view of Santa Claus.

 

3) No one makes me say "under Santa" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

4) No one tries to get Santa taught in school as part of an "Intelligent Design" argument.

 

5) No one asks me to give 10% of my money to Santa.

 

 

 

I don't see why you care, since you don't think God exists.

 

I said I was curious, I did not say that I cared.

 

Religion does not NEED it, considering how miniscule this "benefit" you claim exists is there. There is nothing the gov't did to benefit them.

 

And since when have people taken the government's word seriously?

 

The First Amendment does not say it is okay for the government to endorse or sponsor religions if they don't need it. Whether they need it or not, religions do benefit from government displays of religion.

[Guest MikeSC]

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda.

Ah, a "tool of propaganda".

 

For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist?

I beleive that the Bible exist, I just don't believe that most of it is true.

An atheist believes that God does not EXIST. You can't propagandize an entity that does not exist.

 

Again, it'd be comparable to me complaining about Santa Claus on public property. I can't really complain about something that does not exist.

Religion is what is being propagandized. Atheists do not believe that God exists, but are very aware that religion (the beleif and worship of deities) DOES exist.

Environmentalism is little more than religious dogma. Yet, you have no problems with that being taught in schools.

 

So, for you, it's not so much that a religion is being taught --- just that it is one you don't subscribe to.

 

And are you SERIOUSLY implying that the government is "sponsoring" the CONCEPT of religion? That's pretty out there.

The major differences between God and Santa Claus:

 

1) No one is telling me if I don't conform to Santa's morality, I'm going to hell.

Let's switch it to environmentalism. Environmentalism does preach this.

2) No one is killing others over their view of Santa Claus.

Environmentalists have maimed loggers.

3) No one makes me say "under Santa" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Nobody makes you say the Pledge regardless.

4) No one tries to get Santa taught in school as part of an "Intelligent Design" argument.

They do teach environmentalism, which is about as legit.

5) No one asks me to give 10% of my money to Santa.

Nobody makes you tithe, period.

Religion does not NEED it, considering how miniscule this "benefit" you claim exists is there. There is nothing the gov't did to benefit them.

 

And since when have people taken the government's word seriously?

The First Amendment does not say it is okay for the government to endorse or sponsor religions if they don't need it. Whether they need it or not, religions do benefit from government displays of religion.

And you have yet to demonstrate any demonstrable benefit.

-=Mike

..."but they are legitimizing religion --- because, without government, NOBODY would go to church..."

[SuperJerk 0]

Mike, you last post is a classic example of someone twisting words around to make them say something I did not say. For example you said:

Nobody makes you tithe, period.

When I never said that anyone did, and that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. This is just ONE example of you doing this.

 

With all the red herrings (defending religion by attacking environmentalism....seriously, dude, if you want to attack environmentalism, do it in THAT thread), and straw men (suggestions I want to outlaw religion) being thrown at me, I think I should make it perfectly clear what I am arguing for. This has been my position, and if you reread my posts you will see that everything I've written has been consistent with this belief:

 

I believe, and I believe that the Constitution supports this, that the U.S. government should not be erecting signs that say "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" unless it is made clear to everyone that it is doing so for historic reason rather than for religious ones.

 

Is that really so wrong? I honestly don't understand why this is even really that controversial.

 

I just want the government to follow its own rules and not be used as a tool to promote a single or multiple religions. That's all. I'm not trying to outlaw religion, as MikeSC has claimed repeatedly.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, you last post is a classic example of someone twisting words around to make them say something I did not say. For example you said:

Nobody makes you tithe, period.

When I never said that anyone did, and that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. This is just ONE example of you doing this.

You were bitching about tithing as a criticism of religion --- yet I've NEVER been to a church where it was insisted that I tithe. They are LESS pushy, quite frankly, than any charity I've ever seen.

 

I CUT AND PASTED PRECISELY WHAT YOU SAID before I replied to it. So stop bitching because you are incapable of presenting your opinion.

With all the red herrings (defending religion by attacking environmentalism....seriously, dude, if you want to attack environmentalism, do it in THAT thread)

It's about CONSISTENCY. You think religion shouldn't be recognized by a government whatsoever, yet have NO qualms about environmentalist groups literally getting money shovelled at them, despite the sheer lack of difference in what they are:

 

Namely, groups that rely, almost solely, upon articles of faith.

and straw men (suggestions I want to outlaw religion) being thrown at me, I think I should make it perfectly clear what I am arguing for.

Bitched the guy who just invented a statement out of me from the deep recesses of your frenzied imagination.

 

Unlike you, I reply to EXACTLY what you say. Notice the rampant quotes?

This has been my position, and if you reread my posts you will see that everything I've written has been consistent with this belief:

 

I believe, and I believe that the Constitution supports this, that the U.S. government should not be erecting signs that say "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" unless it is made clear to everyone that it is doing so for historic reason rather than for religious ones.

And I'm saying there is NARY a difference between environmentalism and religion. And I'm saying you're a hypocrite --- and quite a big one --- for only bitching about things you don't like.

Is that really so wrong?  I honestly don't understand why this is even really that controversial.

Because you are claiming that there is some tangible benefit religion gets from government without ever actually EXPRESSING one. You say the government shouldn't "sponsor" one, ignoring that the gov't doesn't give money to religions, nor does it force you to choose to support one.

 

You're bitching, at this point, simply to bitch.

I just want the government to follow its own rules and not be used as a tool to promote a single or multiple religions.  That's all.  I'm not trying to outlaw religion, as MikeSC has claimed repeatedly.

I fucking call you out on this:

 

Find one example of me saying this about you. Just one example where I said you advocate the OUTLAWING of religion.

 

You can't because you and I both know that I didn't say that and your crying that I "twist your words" is just another example of your rampant hypocrisy.

 

Unlike YOU, I don't invent words you said. I simply take you down using your own illogical shit.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Find one example of me saying this about you. Just one example where I said you advocate the OUTLAWING of religion.

I'll admit that you didn't actually use the exact word "outlaw", but you used phrases which mean the exact same thing. The difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I'm using different words which mean the same thing to re-explain your points, whereas your trying to reinvent my points in your rebuttal in a way that misrepresents what I actually said.

 

the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

 

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people.

 

Sounds to me like you're saying I advocate the outlawing of religion. Using terms like "prohibit free exercise thereof" and "force" in this context means the same thing as outlawing religion.

 

Like I said, the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I'm using different words which mean the same thing to re-explain your points, whereas your trying to reinvent my points in your rebuttal in a way that misrepresents what I actually said. Case in point:

 

You think religion shouldn't be recognized by a government whatsoever, yet have NO qualms about environmentalist groups literally getting money shovelled at them

 

You've intentionally attributed a viewpoint to me WHICH I DO NOT HOLD.

 

That is NOT a rational argument and is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

[Guest MikeSC]

Find one example of me saying this about you. Just one example where I said you advocate the OUTLAWING of religion.

I'll admit that you didn't actually use the exact word "outlaw", but you used phrases which mean the exact same thing.

Using terms like "prohibit free exercise thereof" and "force" in this context means the same thing as outlawing religion.

 

 

Since I never said ANYTHING close to that, you're STILL a lying hypocrite.

The difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I'm using different words which mean the same thing to re-explain your points, whereas your trying to reinvent my points in your rebuttal in a way that misrepresents what I actually said.

Hmm, I use your DIRECT quotes.

 

You INVENT quotes from me.

 

Got it. Same thing.

the incessant attacks on any semblance of religion IS "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

But you're trying to force atheism onto non-atheist people.

Sounds to me like you're saying I advocate the outlawing of religion.

Then, to be generous, you're a bleeding moron.

Like I said, the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I'm using different words which mean the same thing to re-explain your points, whereas your trying to reinvent my points in your rebuttal in a way that misrepresents what I actually said.  Case in point:

 

You think religion shouldn't be recognized by a government whatsoever, yet have NO qualms about environmentalist groups literally getting money shovelled at them

 

You've intentionally attributed a viewpoint to me WHICH I DO NOT HOLD.

Funny, I don't hear you criticizing the literal spending of MILLIONS on environmentalist bilge --- but the NOT FUNDING of religion IS a crisis for you.

 

Got it.

That is NOT a rational argument and is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

Better than your FLAT-OUT inventing quotes and arguments from me, while crying about how I do that, ignoring that I, in fact, DON'T do that.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Oh calm down Mike. For the sake of Christ.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh calm down Mike. For the sake of Christ.

How 'bout this --- when I invent moronic quotes from you (thanks for the steady flow of material, BTW. Inventing asinine quotes from you will never be needed), we can talk.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Mike, if you think my use of the word "outlaw" (which I never claimed was a direct quote) instead of the words "prohibit" and "force" (even though in context they mean the same thing) is the same thing as you making up and attributing environmentalists positions to me, you are sadly mistaken.

 

I never invented a single quote from you.

 

And calling me names isn't going to help prove your point any better, either.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, if you think my use of the word "outlaw" (which I never claimed was a direct quote) instead of the words "prohibit" and "force" (even though in context they mean the same thing) is the same thing as you making up attributing environmentalists positions to me, you are sadly mistaken.

 

And calling me names isn't going to help prove your point any better, either.

Nope. I've never once argued that you advocate ANY banishment or reduction on the practice of religion. I argued that what you ADVOCATE is no different than the current situation, just the religious group that would have its way would be different. Since I have ALSO said that no legitimate religious group is currently forbidden from practicing its religion, I've already shown that you have lied.

 

Nice try, hypocrite.

-=Mike

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Oh calm down Mike. For the sake of Christ.

How 'bout this --- when I invent moronic quotes from you (thanks for the steady flow of material, BTW. Inventing asinine quotes from you will never be needed), we can talk.

-=Mike

Um... it's a message board. You act like the guy sucker punched your dog. You made your point.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh calm down Mike. For the sake of Christ.

How 'bout this --- when I invent moronic quotes from you (thanks for the steady flow of material, BTW. Inventing asinine quotes from you will never be needed), we can talk.

-=Mike

Um... it's a message board. You act like the guy sucker punched your dog. You made your point.

He feels he did nothing wrong. I am not letting this go.

-=Mike