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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (3306)	1/26/2001 2:48:52 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

<you can have the last post OK, I'll take it, but I hope it's not the last. We don't seem to be understanding each other very well and I'd like to fix that. I started this by fussing about the effusive display of Christianity at the inauguration. You replied: I am sorry, that just sounds like sour grapes to me. You should be proud. You are able to freely choose. SO IS HE. Becoming President should not diminish his Christianity, it should spotlight it...Of course you also have the choice to attempt to move to one of the countries that don't abide Christianity. I took that to mean that I was bitter because I'm not the same religion as the President and that I am free to choose to convert. If I don't want to convert, I have the choice to leave. (I made no inference about why I should be proud. To live in a country where I was free to choose my religion, perhaps.) Your reply was: He can choose to show his Christianity or not. Just because you do not like it, is no reason for him to hide it. IF you do not like him as a Christian, I merely pointed out some of your options, which are not very desirable. If I now understand you correctly, you are saying that I am bitter that I have to be exposed to his display of Christianity and if I don't like it I can leave. Is that correct? Is that why you say I need sermons in charity I may have used the wrong terminology. I'm quite far removed from Christianity so I may have incorrectly used a term of art. That was sloppy of me. I thought that Christian charity meant that Christians were expected to place a premium on charity in their characters. Websters defines charity as: 1 : benevolent goodwill toward or love of humanity 2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need b : an institution engaged in relief of the poor c : public provision for the relief of the needy 3 a : a gift for public benevolent purposes b : an institution (as a hospital) founded by such a gift 4 : lenient judgment of others I was thinking particularly of meaning 1,2, and 4. When I did a search on "Christian charity" I found primarily meaning number 3. I'm sorry for the confusion. I was trying to convey that your message as I understood it didn't feel very charitable toward non-Christians. Karen