Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpmac who wrote (44130)	7/6/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think one can call Christians "Christians" and the people who hide behind Christianity tend to be fanatics- they could be fanatical about anything, it is only by chance that they latch on to Christianity. If they were born in the middle East they would be fanatics for Islam or Judaism. The unfortunate thing about belief systems is that they foster fanatics. I do not know of many agnostic fanatics (besides myself) and I do not believe there are any violent ones (even including me).

To: jpmac who wrote (44130)	7/6/1999 1:35:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 108807

>>>>>I wish I could come up with an easy way to differentiate in language between Christians and people who hide behind the shield of a religion's name to cover motives that are political.<<<<< Excellent point! One would hope that some congregations, maybe even ministers, would make that point loudly during the upcoming elections. But as I have posted before, I think the true agenda is getting rid of abortion - or at least Roe v. Wade. I am sure - in fact, I know - that politicians, ministers and pundits are working tirelessly toward that goal. I saw in the Washington Post recently that the House of Representatives voted to make it illegal to transport teenagers across state lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion in a more liberal state. I am certain that Clinton would veto such a law if it were ever enacted, but not so certain about George W. Wonder what the Supreme Court would have to say about it? Seems like it tracks the Mann Act. Do you remember that before Roe v. Wade was decided, it was legal to get abortions in California? Some states allowed them, and some didn't. All Roe v. Wade did was make it illegal for states to outlaw abortions completely.