Saturday, 20 April 2013

Unbelievably Distilled discussion part 2

Continued from part 1...


  • James Croft Let me put it another way: had the governor organized an atheist service, which explicitly promoted atheism, would you have been satisfied that the needs of Bostonians had been met?
  • Tom Tozer I think Wiccans are funny. Also chicken sacrifices.
  • Peter Sean Bradley You don't get an answer because your question is beside the point. - James Croft

    My questions aren't beside the point, they are the point.

    Why should atheists participate in an "interfaith service" when they aren't a faith?

    Clearly, you didn't think this through when you wrote your post, and you don't have any answer.

    Nice work.
  • Tom Tozer No, I wouldn't have been satisified that "the needs of Bostonians had been met." Nor would expect them to be. Nor would I whine about it.
  • Peter Sean Bradley You are failing to make a critical distinction here: between an elected representative visiting a privately-organized meeting (like a church service or a union rally) and an elected representative organizing, on behalf of the government, a meeting with the imprimatur of the government, using tax funds to do so. - James Croft

    If that's true, it might be valid.

    I don't think it's true, frankly, because I've been reading Con law cases for the last three decades.

    Let's see your evidence.
  • Peter Sean Bradley James Croft - How would you feel if the city government of Boston had described atheists as subverting the traditions of Boston?

    Would that have been acceptable?

    Do you think it would have been constitutional?

    How would that fit in with the principles you are attempting to outline?

    I suspect that you will hand-waive this question, but there's a case that these questions will lead to that will probably change your opinions.
  • James Croft Evidence for what? You've lost me. If you mean evidence that the Governor's Office decided what was doing to be in the service, they told me on the phone earlier today when I called them up. The same information was given to other representatives of the nonreligious people in Boston yesterday. As for evidence of the governmental imprimatur on the event, just look at the image in my post: the program has the state seal on the front of it. That's pretty much the definition of governmental imprimatur.

    As for your other question, no it would be completely outrageous display of prejudice were our elected representatives to describe nonreligious people in that way. I would of course protest loudly, as I do whenever elected officials make such ridiculous claims. I fail to see the relevance to the current case however.
  • Peter Sean Bradley Evidence for what? You've lost me. If you mean evidence that the Governor's Office decided what was doing to be in the service, they told me on the phone earlier today when I called them up. The same information was given to other representatives of the nonreligious people in Boston yesterday. - James Croft

    You are equivocating and being evasive.

    You said "using tax funds."

    Where's the evidence?

    I don't think that there is such evidence because that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

    Likewise, when you say "organizing," I think you probably misunderstand what you were told. I think that the interfaith community organized it and reached out to the government, which properly joined in as a private actor - i.e., as a representative of the community along with other representatives of other communities - as a way of shoring up public morale.

    The notion of the government acting as "private actor" is well-established in law and permits the government to do things it might not be able to do in its purely public capacity.

    But I seriously doubt that a nickel of public money went to this.
  • Tom Tozer This is really about cutting religion out of the public forum.
  • Peter Sean Bradley As for your other question, no it would be completely outrageous display of prejudice were our elected representatives to describe nonreligious people in that way. I would of course protest loudly, as I do whenever elected officials make such ridiculous claims. I fail to see the relevance to the current case however. - James Croft

    Thanks for your answer. I think you are being honest.

    Now for the reveal,...the City of San Francisco did say such thing...but it was about Catholics...and it was upheld as proper governmental action by the Ninth Circuit.

    http://www.thomasmore.org/news/us-supreme-court-asked-review-san-francisco-s-anti-catholic-resolution

    We'll see if you reverse your position now, but the point is that the principle of governmental neutrality vis a vis religions (and non-religions) is not as iron-clad as you think. Apparently, for (liberal) judges it is perfectly acceptable to stigmatize (some) religions.

    Strangely, I didn't hear any voices from the atheist community protesting against San Francisco, but maybe that was because at that time atheists were simply "not collecting stamps."


    www.thomasmore.org
    The Thomas More Law Center, yesterday afternoon, filed a petition with the U.S. ...See more
  • James Croft I am attempting to clarify and be clear - be more charitable!

    The staff at the Governor's Office reviewed the program and selected what would and would not be included: they told me so themselves today. That means THEIR STAFF worked on this service. We pay the wages of their staff. Ergo, tax money went into the service.

    As for who reached out to whom, when you put the state seal on the program of an event, that becomes an official government event. Just look at the image (I've updated my post with a bigger version just for you). That is the sigil of the Republic of Massachusetts, which is displayed by law "on the main or administration building of each public institution of the commonwealth". Its use is strictly controlled and it is almost exclusively seen in relation to public organizations and events. You cannot get any clearer than this.

    As for the question of whether this is about "cutting religion out of the public forum" - it's not. I actually strongly support the role of religion in the public forum. I just don't support state-sanctioned preferential treatment of a few religious perspectives over all others. Neither did the Founders of this nation.
  • James Croft As regards the resolution in San Francisco, for there to be any case for me to answer there would have to be some meaningful analogy to be drawn between the two situations. You'd have to draw out the analogy for me here because I don't see it (this is after reading the actual resolution, not the biased interpretation of it to which you linked). The resolution does not say that the lawmakers of San Francisco consider Catholics to be subverting the traditions of San Francisco...
  • Peter Sean Bradley As regards the resolution in San Francisco, for there to be any case for me to answer there would have to be some meaningful analogy to be drawn between the two situations - James Croft

    Yup, as I predicted, you are backtracking now that you know that it involves Catholics and adoptions.

    And with that, you've forfeited all right to claim moral outrage re non-faith groups being involved to an activity limited to the faith community.

    Also, "biased interpretation"????

    But I'm supposed to accept your statements as "unbiased"????

    LOL.

    Also, what happened to your vaunted "empathy," now that it is Catholics being stigmatized.

    LOL, again.
  • Christopher Soulos Are Stamp Shops making any money in Boston?
  • James Croft I am not backtracking - I am pointing out that the situations are not analogous. Were the San Francisco government to have declared "Catholics are subverting the traditions of San Francisco" I would absolutely protest that. They didn't.

    The tricky thing about resolutions is you have to actually read what they say...
  • Peter Sean Bradley That means THEIR STAFF worked on this service. We pay the wages of their staff. Ergo, tax money went into the service. - James Croft

    Yeah, I figured that it would be as attenuated as all that.

    See my point about the government acting as a "private actor."

    That's totally different than what you described.
  • James Croft This is absurd - when the Governor's Office decides who speaks and who doesn't they are not acting as a private actor attending someone else's event. They are running the event. You are being obtuse.
  • Peter Sean Bradley James Croft - So, it would have been acceptable to you if the City of Boston had said that atheist organizations are subverting the principles of Boston and therefore we won't invent them to an "interfaith service"???

    Is that really where you are going?

    Is that what your really want to say?

    LOL.
  • Peter Sean Bradley For a guy who was making sweeping statements not 10 posts ago, you suddenly are into a lot of "nuance" when the outrageous conduct is directed against Catholics and not atheists.
  • Peter Sean Bradley Here is the language of the Resolution, from this source - http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/06/9th-circuit-upholds-anti-catholic.html - which, I understand, you will discover is put up by a Catholic and therefore is "ritually unclean."

    //Resolution No. 168-06

    Resolution urging Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican, to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.

    WHEREAS, It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great City’s existing and established customs and traditions such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need; and

    WHEREAS, The statement of Cardinal Levada and the Vatican that “Catholic agencies should not place children for adoption in homosexual households,” and “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children” are absolutely unacceptable to the citizenry of San Francisco; and

    WHEREAS, Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors; and

    WHEREAS, Same-sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples; and

    WHEREAS, Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear; and

    WHEREAS, The Board of Supervisors urges Archbishop Niederauer and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy all discriminatory directives of Cardinal Levada; now, therefore, be it

    RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors urges Cardinal William Levada, in his capacity as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith [sic] at the Vatican (formerly known as Holy Office of the Inquisition), to withdraw his discriminatory and defamatory directive that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children in need of adoption with homosexual households.//

    Insofar as you find this resolution acceptable, or you find a way to distinguish it, you forfeit the broad moral position you were staking out earlier.

    Life's tough that way.

  • James Croft I am ver confused now - I think I've been quite clear where I stand and you keep introducing completely orthogonal questions with no bearing on the case. I do not support any displays of religious prejudice on the part of elected officials, no. This has nothing to do with the substantive issue, however. You are really flailing to change the subject.
  • Tom Tozer "I just don't support state-sanctioned preferential treatment of a few religious perspectives over all others. Neither did the Founders of this nation."

    A few religious perspectives? Christianity, Judaism and Islam? Please. This isn't the government endorsing Methodism. And in fact, the Founders allowed prayers to open Congressional meetings, didn't they? Did they ever invite a Wiccan to sacrifice a chicken? I think there are multiple strands to our Founders, and not just your convenient view.
  • Paul Orton Peter Sean Bradley: You accused me of leaving in a huff and being illogical earlier. I joined the conversation as I enjoy discussing with theists such as Martin Davies and Christopher Soulos who will listen to a point of view in a tolerant manner and either agree or disagree with it. You and I have crossed swords on a number of occasions but I am not looking for a swordfight. I do not wish to rejoin this conversation as I did not wish, or have the time, to spend on what I expected to be a semi-legal argument during which you would refuse to concede the slightest point, which is what has happened so far. James Croft is doing a fine job. I did not withdraw in a huff and don't think you can accuse me of passive aggression or prejudiced bigotry yet again. I simply do not enjoy your company here on Facebook as I do not find it tolerant or positive. End of.
  • Johno Pearce Paul Orton - it was the same situation with him on the stoning debate. Frustrating to say the least.
  • Helen Marple-Horvat Can we please not talk about people as if they are unable to see or hear it.
  • Johno Pearce Who said that?
  • Peter Sean Bradley Paul Orton then leave the debates without insulting people by insinuating that they are "intolerant" and that you are too good to lower yourself to talk to them.

    Thus, far in every discussion, you have insulted me or mine. I'd like to think that the insults were unintentional, but it is very obvious that you do intend them, and then when a flag gets thrown on the play, you get wide eye and say "Who me?"

    Why don't you try to engage with the substance of the argument instead of finding something - anything - in the tone that you can object to and leave in a huff?
  • Peter Sean Bradley Johno Pearce - another case in point. As I recall, you were riding a "one trick pony" about how evil God must be insofar as the OT mentions stoning, and you got upset when context and history was mentioned.

    Yes, I found that discussion very edifying.



You guys are amazing...if you don't get instant agreement with your propositions - no matter how you stack the proposition - you call names, sulk, or claim that the other side is playing "unfair."

You might consider looking in a mirror.

Just a suggestion.







  • Peter Sean Bradley I think I've been quite clear where I stand and you keep introducing completely orthogonal questions with no bearing on the case. - James Croft

    Yes, you've been very clear that you think that it is beastly when atheists are treated in ways that you think are beastly.

    Stipulated.

    So what?

    Is there any kind of principle here that we can talk about other than your feelings?

    The way that we talk about principles is we (a) announce the principle in a clear and fair manner and (b) apply the principle to different fact patterns in order to determine if the principle makes sense.

    Based on the example that I set, you think it is (maybe) hunky-dory for the government to stigmatize one group of its citizens based on what they believe.

    That pretty much tells us that your concern is not with principles, but with special pleading on behalf of atheists.

    *Yawn*

    Go talk to the choir. I don't have time for such hypocrisy.








  • Matthew Su I don't really see the problem. Seeking healing by putting oneself into the hands of the Lord Almighty is something Muslims, Jews and Christians (heck, deists, sikhs and Zoroastrians, if there are any) can do, but which atheists will not, by definition. Atheists are as "excluded" from such "healing" as much as Jehovah's Witnesses are "excluded" from the government offering public blood transfusions.








  • Peter Sean Bradley I think there are multiple strands to our Founders, and not just your convenient view - Tom Tozer

    Such as Congressional chaplains, and "God save this honorable court" and Lincoln declaring Thanksgiving a day to ask the blessing of God and the mention of God in the Declaration of Independence and "In God we trust" on the currency, etc., etc.

    The notion that the First Amendment was ever intended to mean removing religion from the public square is contrary to fact.

    Here is Lincoln declaring a day of prayer - http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/fast.htm

    The "shocking" involvement of the Massachusetts' government in an "interfaith service" has precedents that go back to the Founders.


    www.abrahamlincolnonline.org
    Senator James Harlan of Iowa, whose daughter later married President Lincoln's s...See more








  • Johno Pearce I do believe you did not engage properly with the questions (if you find stoning repugnant, how could an all-loving God decree it for relatively minor infringements? That 'context' seems to make stoning acceptable - convenantal moral relativism etc) whilst at the same time claiming my point was "arrow, self-righteous, smug, unimaginative, pedestrian, unthinking ... complete waste of time". But that was then, this is now.








  • Peter Sean Bradley And by the way, none of the "highly evolved brights" has explained to me why atheism - which is not a faith and amounts to "not collecting stamps" - should be represented in an "inter FAITH service."

    I guess that question gets in the way of gassing on about "feelings" and "outrage."








  • Johno Pearce The term, interfaith, then, is exclusionist.








  • Peter Sean Bradley Johno Pearce - if you want to discuss stoning, start a new thread, state your proposition clearly, and don't whine or sulk if I don't accept your premises.

    As for what you claim I said, do you have a link to what you say I said?

    I don't recall saying that. If I did, which I doubt, I need to the see the context. I know for certain, however, based on my normal modus operandi, that there would have been substantive comments backed by citations to real authorities complete with links so that people could read my sources and question them.

    You know, kind of like what I've done repeatedly in this thread, but no one else had done.

    *Sheesh*








  • Matthew Su If one's private eccentricities prevent one from partaking in a public service, how does that amount to "exclusion"? Do they honestly check for your theist membership cards at such events?








  • Peter Sean Bradley The term, interfaith, then, is exclusionist.- Johno Pearce

    Riiiiiiight, i'm begining to see why I might have used the term "pedestrian."

    Do you see the word "faith" in the words "InterFAITH service?"

    That word means "faith.""

    Therefore, unions and NGOs and businesses were not invited.

    Also, "non-bowlers" and "non-stamp collectors" were not invited.

    Good lord, this whole thread is based on "begging the question", isn't it?








  • James Croft You folks are unbelievable! Do you have no concern for other people? I can't get my head around it!

    What is so difficult about this concept: IF the term "interfaith" is to be interpreted as excluding atheists and Humanists, THEN the government cannot host an interfaith service as part of its official governmental response to terrorist attacks! Why is that so difficult for you to grasp!








  • Peter Sean Bradley Do any of you "highly evolved brights" want to answer my point - how is atheism a faith?

    I know it's embarrassing to admit that you folks are being hypocritical and all, but I would like to know if you think atheism is not a faith or if it is faith?

    Or do some of you think one thing and some another?








  • Peter Sean Bradley You folks are unbelievable! Do you have no concern for other people? I can't get my head around it!= James Croft

    You are unbelievable.

    You are presented with a clear example of the stigmatization of a religious group by the government and you response was "I'll have to look into that."








  • Peter Sean Bradley But you won't answer my question as to why a non-faith should be invited to a faith service.








  • Helen Marple-Horvat There is no ultimate healing for an atheist because there is no hope for justice or for redemption. Perhaps there should be some state provision humanism ...like an Unfaith gathering.

    What is fab though is the different faiths coming together.

    I cant be doing with this atheist whining.

    "I dont want to go to your party cos I hate parties.

    Parties are no fun.

    Wah wah. I havent been invited to the party!"








  • Peter Sean Bradley That's unbelievable and all your attempts to squint and rule my points as out of order simply reveal the hypocrisy and special pleading of your so-called principle.








  • Peter Sean Bradley "I dont want to go to your party cos I hate parties.

    Parties are no fun.

    Wah wah. I havent been invited to the party!" - Helen Marple-Horvat

    Toss into the mix, "and its ok when we go to our party and invite everyone but you and then stigmatize you for not fitting in." (Cf. San Francisco's Anti-Catholic Resolution.)








  • James Croft You are all being profoundly inconsiderate. I do not understand what you don't understand. It's simple prejudice in my view.








  • Johno Pearce Peter, what we seem to be hinting at is the WAY you talk to people. It does not in any way make people want to enter into a dialectical process with you. You are too aggressive and confrontational - precisely what Unbelievable tries not to be.








  • Helen Marple-Horvat I have heard it all now. For four years I have been hering how athgeism is NOT a faith. And now it apparently IS after all....because there is some whining to be done. Unbeleivable nonsense.








  • Peter Sean Bradley James Croft

    1. You still haven't explained why atheism - which is not a faith - should be invited to an interfaith service.

    2. You lost all moral high ground when you didn't condemn the state's stigmatization of Catholics.

    Give it a rest, already.

    Or, I don't know, answer my points, rather than just repeating yourself.








  • Helen Marple-Horvat Johno. Please dont critique Peter's tone. He is robust. You are not faint with your arguments in the slightest. The arguments stand by themselves.








  • Helen Marple-Horvat YOur sayin g that Peter is agressive is just psychologising him. You have absolutely no idea of his emotional state, as he has of yours. Please dont do it. You cant tell anything from text.








  • Johno Pearce Helen, you may be happy to be spoken to in such ways, but I am not. The internet does not automatically allow for a lack of respect and decorum. Just because he is 'one your side' does not mean one should put up with virtually every post having a snide and undercutting current that stifles open and honest discourse.








  • Johno Pearce I am not psyhcologising him. Read his words. Read the other threads. COnsidering that virtually everyone says this about him must tell you something.








  • Peter Sean Bradley eter, what we seem to be hinting at is the WAY you talk to people. It does not in any way make people want to enter into a dialectical process with you. You are too aggressive and confrontational - precisely what Unbelievable tries not to be. - Johno Pearce

    Here's a shocker, but I find you and Paul Orton and others insulting, rude and intolerant.

    This thread is a classic example.

    Go through the thread and count the number of ad hominem attacks thrown or insinuated at me.

    Then, note, that James Croft says I lack empathy and am intolerant, while he treats the government's stigmatization of the religious group I belong to as irrelevant to his discussion about how awful it is for his non-faith not to be invited to a faith service.

    I typically get "forceful" only when confronted by that level of illogic, special pleading and hypocrisy.

    So, tone goes both ways.








  • Helen Marple-Horvat Johno. He is no different to you. This is enough to make me vote tory. Please stop.
















  • Helen Marple-Horvat I have seen a whole load of atheists whine and psychologise me too I am well aware of the tactic used to silence good points.








  • Peter Sean Bradley Johno Pearce - one difference between me and you is that I am used to the rudeness and intolerance that you and atheists dish out to me and I don't spend time sulking about my "hurt feelings."

    Also, you will note that I don't spend time psychologizing the other person. I address their points.

    If they feel offended because their points are weak, then maybe they should learn from that experience.








  • Peter Sean Bradley I also get "forceful" when I see equivocation and evasion, such as the refusal of the brights in this thread to explain how a "non-faith" is being discriminated against by not being invited to a faith service.

    What I conclude is that the answer would appear to be "because we say so" and "words mean what we want them to mean when we want them to mean that."

    Sorry, brights, but I don't respect that kind of "thinking."

    If find it, what did Johno Pearce say? Ah, yes, "n"arrow, self-righteous, smug, unimaginative, pedestrian, unthinking ... complete waste of time."

    Sorry if that hurts anyone's feelings, but how about proving me wrong by answering the question.








  • Matthew Su One could easily claim that an "interfaith" service discriminates against all faiths with exclusive truth claims. The vague "God" of these services is not even supposed to be the God of Abraham. But religious people take what truth and strength they can from them all the same, and appreciate the gesture. It's a matter of not being a churl.

    If aggrieved atheists don't believe in God, then go on not believing. One could do worse than follow the religious example and take what one can from this sort of thing. If all that one believes in is solidarity and the will to recover, there's plenty of that at these things. Take the religious dressing to be what atheism claims it to be- a mythological articulation of the human desire to express grief- something cathartic and using a certain traditional cultural language, and enjoy it for those effects as far as one is able, as many nominally- or non-religious people do.








  • Peter Sean Bradley Matthew Su - I suspect that there were no LCMS or Wisconsin Synod Lutherans because of their prohibition against praying with other religious groups.








  • Matthew Su To be fair, the Lutherans probably don't suffer as the atheists do. It's not like their stomachs turn at the slightest whiff of Heaven, after all.








  • Peter Sean Bradley And I don't feel insulted and outraged that Lutherans won't pray with Catholics or other Christians.

    That's because I'm actually tolerant of other people.








  • James Croft Peter you really are missing the point. If an interfaith services are not inclusive of atheists, as you insist, then the government cannot use one to respond to a tragedy like this. This is a simple matter of fairness and consideration for the communities affected. If they choose to use such a service then they must make it inclusive.








  • Peter Sean Bradley James Croft you are simply repeating your question-begging assumption.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out:

    1. There is no discrimination in treating unlike things unlike.

    2. Atheism is not a faith.

    3. The government can, at least, participate in faith activities as community participant

    4. For that matter, the government can actually sponsor religious activities in a broad, non-denominational way. Cf. "Thanksgiving" and "Lincoln's Day of Prayer."

    5. Therefore, (a) the government could be involved with an "interfaith service" and (b) it is not discriminatory to not invite a not faith to a faith service.

    You can repeat yourself all you want and you can beg the question all you want, but you don't have the facts, the law or logic on your side.

    Also, you are pretty much a hypocrite for whining about a non-faith being not invited to a faith service on the basis of "discrimination" while being unconcerned about the government stigmatizing a religion as being subversive of community values.

    If you want to deal with the actual issues, as I've been requesting for the last 18 hours, I would be delighted to see that.








  • James Croft Let's say for the sake of argument I were to accept your points above. Why would the state want to proceed in this way? What good does it do to engage in these sorts of divisive displays?








  • Peter Sean Bradley Let's say for the sake of argument I were to accept your points above. Why would the state want to proceed in this way? What good does it do to engage in these sorts of divisive displays?- James Croft

    You are not "accepting my points for the sake of argument" in the slightest.

    You are simply repeating yourself and continuing to beg the question.

    Thus, how is it "divisive" not to invite a non-faith to a faith service?

    Was it "divisive" not to invite labor unions or Planned Parenthood - which are also not faith groups - to participate in this faith service?

    I don't think so.

    That's the question you keep "begging."

    What we have here is not so much a failure to communicate as a failure to recognize the basic logic that is the foundation for communication.








  • James Croft YOU ARE ASKING THE WRONG QUESTION! I can't say it any clearer than this: the Governor's Office had a CHOICE as to WHETHER it wanted to hold an "interfaith" service or some other sort of service. WHY, given that (in your view) atheists must be excluded by definition from an interfaith service, did they CHOOSE to hold an interfaith service and therefore CHOOSE to divide the city, in a moment of healing, into "religious" and "not religious"?








  • Peter Sean Bradley James Croft - See my point about what is obviously your inability to recognize basic logic.

    Rather than YELL AT ME and repeat yourself over and over, why don't you attempt to convince me that you are right? You might do this by appealing to some self-evident principle that we both agree on and then go from there.

    I doubt that you will do that, from what I've seen, largely because what I've seen is that most people now lack the ability to understand that persuasion isn't based on yelling and name-calling.








  • James Croft Why don't you answer the question? If I'm frustrated it is because people I know have been HURT by this!








  • Peter Sean Bradley James Croft - let's play the Socratic game.

    1. Is it unjust to treat different things differently? Yes or no?

    2. Is atheism a faith?

    3. Are faith services constitutionally prohibited?

    4. Is it discriminatory to not invite a non-faith to a faith service?








  • James Croft I will answer those questions the moment you answer the one I have been posing for so long. I'll play your game if you answer the substantive question. I don't think you've even read it at this point.








  • Peter Sean Bradley Why don't you answer the question? If I'm frustrated it is because people I know have been HURT by this! James Croft

    1. Exactly! This is all about your "feelings." It has nothing to do with logic and reason. Your project is all about emotional black-mail and special pleading.

    2. Why should I give a rat's ass about your feelings when you stand by and allow my culture to be stigmatized by the government with nary a word of protest?

    Do Catholics not have feelings?

    Are Catholic feelings less important than atheist feelings.

    3. I did answer your question...repeatedly. You are the one who hasn't answered my repeated questions.

    4. Those people who have been hurt should be seeking therapy, not arguing about justice insofar as they have hypocritically abandoned neutral, objective principles.








  • Peter Sean Bradley I will answer those questions the moment you answer the one I have been posing for so long. I'll play your game if you answer the substantive question. I don't think you've even read it at this point. - James Croft

    This is so typical of the atheists I find on the internet. They seem to have a positive allergy to answering questions.

    What is the question that you don't think I've answered.

    Obviously, you know my questions.








  • James Croft I'll repeat myself AGAIN:

    "the Governor's Office had a choice as to whether it wanted to hold an "interfaith" service or some other sort of service. Why, given that (in your view) atheists must be excluded by definition from an interfaith service, did they choose to hold an interfaith service and therefore choose to divide the city, in a moment of healing, into "religious" and "not religious"? Why do that if, in their words, the purpose of the service was described as "an opportunity for the community to come together in the wake of the tragic events at the Boston Marathon this week"? Why divide the community through that choice?"



  • ...continued in part 3
    Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...