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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (37397)	6/30/2005 12:13:41 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

It was not meant to be smug religion slamming at all- rather it was a poke at the mixing of religion and politics. I apologize if you were offended- it was not my intent. I was merely posting pleasantly with the poster in question. Next time, if you feel religion has been slammed, please post to me directly, and I will be happy to apologize for your inference, because I do not intend to slam all religion, or even any specific religion, but only the entanglement with the state. I look forward to your bringing this up with me personally, in future. Thanks in advance.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (37397)	6/30/2005 12:52:33 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 90947

What? You see no difference between an elective republic and a theocracy such as Saudi Arabia or Iran? How blind can you be? Does someone care to argue that the United States is not an elective republic? Duhranged argued that there would be a coup before 2004 and no election; there wasn't and there was. Would anyone careto bet there will be no elctions in 2008?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (37397)	6/30/2005 1:31:56 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 90947

OK, maybe not "smug religion slamming" - just "smug". Nothing new in that. BTW, notice how they evaded the point of that column altogether, and chose instead to make a joke out of one line? Or perhaps they think some of the "speech" that not only appears to be protected by the constitution, but also is paid for with taxpayer dollars, is somehow better for society than an occasional acknowledgement of religion. If so, I wonder why they don't just argue that point instead of tossing out a red herring.