Meta: This is a thought which you keep repeating over and over again in this thread, and I, for the life of me, could not see why, other than to think you a secret die hard Christian, but it prompted me to again examine the article more closely , and much to my embarrassment, I seem to have completely misconstrued the crux of it.cxt wrote:
This guy CURRENTLY wishs to be the behavior and thought police for everyone else--and he tried to use the courts to do it.
And that's wrong.
I initially thought that his argument was to use the courts to acknowledge that Jebus did not exist, which would therefore bolster a position of non interference by the Church into Civil issues.
However, after another look, It is apparent to me that this is perhaps only his secondary focus, with the primary one (as the article is written, to have the courts enforce a law effectively barring the Church from teaching that Jebus existed.
You are right! This IS wrong!
While I am always appalled at the inane-ness of most religious teachings, they DO have the right to teach whatever they wish provided they keep out of civil business when it comes to dogma.
Indeed! The guy IS a yahoo!
Let's hope that reasonable heads prevail on this one, and I apologize for wasting everyone's time in arguing a point which I should have read more thoroughly from at first.
