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: Lane3 who wrote (72900)	8/21/2003 4:35:17 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

I have relations who are Southern Baptists, they are plenty hostile to the non-religious. One of my aunts refused to talk to her daughter for years when she left the church. Obviously I don't tell them ANYTHING about my religious beliefs, or they wouldn't talk to me either- which would be silly of them, because they are old and lonely and enjoy my calls.

To: Lane3 who wrote (72900)	8/21/2003 4:56:34 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I am not aware of any pain to treat cheaply. What have I overlooked? I have encountered plenty of anti- religious sentiment among the secular, so I do not know how you could have missed it. But I will take you at your word. In my experience, in any case, it is not likely to be pain that motivates those pressing this case, but contempt. I could be wrong, course. I first brought it up because of the insulting assumption that Christians could only object because they want to keep their foot on everyone else's neck. I suggested that it might seem a hostile act, and arouse opposition on those grounds. Using such imagery (foot on the neck) is a demonstration of hostility, in my opinion, and tended to confirm my impression that it was anti- Christian sentiment that motivated them.......

To: Lane3 who wrote (72900)	8/21/2003 6:21:46 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I still treat it primarily as a matter of courtesy and bullying. On both sides. The placers may have been discourteous to put it up, but the objectors are discourteous to sue to have it removed. The placers maybe have, though I don't see it, intended to bully people walking by the monument, but clearly the judge ordering its removal is bullying those who want it kept. Both sides should be ordered into permanent time out. My unhappiness is that the divisive figures of Roy Moore and his supporters are obscuring the much more serious issues involved. As are the shrill and strident opponents who seem to think this little monument in the rotunda of a relatively obscure state has the power to topple the constitution and destroy our society. They should all chill. And if the media would take all the cameras away and not let any of those folks on TV, the whole thing would just fade away.