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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DayTraderKidd who wrote (7991)	1/8/2007 7:18:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15994

I'll give you one more chance to understand. You asked - "Are you Christian or an Evangelical Christian?" I answered - "My religious beliefs aren't the issue, and really shouldn't matter to the discussion. Any arguments based on them would be ad-hominem. But if you must know I'm Christian, but not I don't consider myself Evangelical, and religion doesn't play a big part in my life right now. Or if the full statements are too complex for you. I can break it down more. You asked "are you Christian" - I answered yes. You asked if I was evangelical. I answered no. I then volunteered additional information, that at the moment religion is not playing a very big part in my life. And then you keep trying to say I'm dancing around and not answering the question. Of course the question and the entire line of discussion from it, is pretty much irrelevant to the issues we were previously discussing, or any other major issues. So I would have been entirely justified in simply refusing to answer. I probably should have done so, considering you want to keep talking about me, instead of any foreign, or even domestic policy issue. Now if you care to continue the discussion of the original issue, please respond to - "Directly stated its only unconstitutional for the government to establish religion, but its reasonable to consider any sort of formal official government endorsement of religion to be unconstitutional, or at the very least of dubious constitutionality. What happened in the Pentagon doesn't appear to be any such official formal act of government. Presidents, generals, senators, heads of government offices, etc. are free to have and state whatever religious beliefs they want. In fact the constitution expressly protects their freedom to do so both as free speech and free exercise of religion." Message 23133224 Or just drop the topic if you want. Either would be preferable to making me the topic, and even that would be preferable to your pretending that I didn't answer irrelevant personal questions and using that false idea as a platform to attack me. Before nov. 7th, your stone walling the truth and common sense was my problem. Now, its your problem. What does November 7th have to do with the fact that it isn't unconstitutional for a public official to make a declaration of religious faith?