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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9450)	4/17/2002 4:15:59 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Uh, point of order. How can we discuss the ME without considering the validity of religious POVs?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9450)	4/17/2002 4:17:22 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

My guess is she sees no expression against religion as 'contemptuous', particularly not her own.

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (9450)	4/17/2002 4:28:14 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

SO is your objection to religion as a topic that it inevirably leads to a nasty snarlfest or more along the lines of Neocon's argument that "invisible friend" is contemptuous? More the latter. I have no objection to religion as a topic. Religion has a role in much that we discuss, cultural and political issues, and it would be impractical to avoid it. I don't plan on avoiding it. It doesn't inevitably lead to a snarlfest, at least it didn't until recently. My only concern about it at the moment is that the rules of engagement are "unsettled" so the terrain is precarious.