I suppose you've never heard of analogies before? Rarely does an analogy contain the exact same quote AND the same context as the initial situation. I hope analogies, in general, make sense to you...
Not in the slightest. You're basically saying "It's too hard otherwise". I'm basically saying "That's too goddam bad". You can't fuck over those who are innocent just to punish those who are guilty. If that means you can't win, then fine, you can't win. Deal with it.
Or, of course, you can keep doing it, but you're still a prick. (General you, not specific you - I don't know you, so I wouldn't dare make that claim right off the bat:] )
So...it's okay if he goes to Federal Pound-Him-In-The-Ass penitentiary just because he rented a car from a place that also rented a car to a crack dealer?
Huh?
Sorry, but that's still bullshit. He states it clearly in his article: You can't screw over innocents just to make the guilty pay. Does the your government put a neighbor family through torture just because you got a parking ticket? No. It's YOUR fault and YOU should be punished. Not some innocent bystander.
So...you hate me because of something some politician did right around the time I was born?
Real swift, aren't you? I mean, hell, by your logic (guilty by association), everyone in Iraq is guilty of murder just because their former President was.
Fuck you and your generalizations. I didn't vote for Bush, I sure as hell didn't support the war, and I definitely think we made a mistake (many mistakes, in fact). I did all of that, but I'm still 100% American - and proud of it. Again: Fuck you and your pathetic stereotyping. I thought the rest of the world was "smart" and we Americans were "dumb" - at least some of us can manage to differentiate between jackass politicians/talking heads and the individuals of a country.
I didn't mean justifiable in the "it's righteous" sense. I meant it in the "it has justification behind it - a sequence of steps used to get from point a to point b, in which everyone can follow". They're similar, but justifiable in the first sense is the "end result", whereas in the second sense, it's the actual reasoning behind it.
Also, the whole spirit of the constitution is based to protect the rights of everyone - not just the majority. If the majority were always right, we'd have a democracy, not a republic. But we don't.
I see we're both protecting ourselves against the actions of those around us. At my high school, a prayer group met every morning (and came in extra early on Wednesdays and had a prayer meeting in the library before school even started). The Administration was fine with it. I was completely okay with it - and would have continued to be okay with it, even if teachers/principles/other school officials were part of it.
There's a difference between a teacher sitting at her desk and quietly praying off and on throughout the day (though, practically speaking, she shouldn't be doing it instead of teaching - but if the class were busy with something else, there's nothing wrong with that). I respect her right to do such, and I especially respect the rights of the kids to do it too - as long as it isn't interfering with their work ("Sorry Mrs. Uglyface, I can't take your stupid pop quiz, I have to pray"). Those are completely fine, and I'll stand with you - hopefully with the ACLU - and fight against anyone who tries to stop that.
But when the teacher leads the class in prayer - during class time - that's where there's a problem. Before school officially begins and after school ends, I would have no problem with a teacher leading students in prayer (provided, of course, they kept that separate from class (no "if you come to my prayer meeting after school, I'll give you bonus points" crap)). But forcing a student to pray - to the point where a: their grade depends upon it or b: they'll face undue social duress (if, for example, a student is in a predominantly Christian area, and has all Christian students in the class, and their refusal to partake in prayer time because they're Jewish or Islamic - thus drawing their religious beliefs firmly into the open (something that can be very bad, if you're not part of the majority) - could then cause them all sorts of problems with the students who may see their different beliefs as something to be ashamed of).
If a group of kids wants to huddle in a corner and pray, fine. If they want to go to the Library and go off into some little nook and discuss the Bible, they should be able to. Of course, they can't be demanding special privileges, but to pray, or discuss The Word amongst themselves, or even with a teacher who isn't forcing the entire class into it (say, a study hall teacher), then go for it.
The same should hold true in the government. If some government workers want to go pray during their coffee break instead of discussing football, then good for them. If they want to put a cross on their desk, then good for them. It may be obnoxious to me, but just because something is obnoxious doesn't mean it should be illegal. The purpose of the government isn't to protect me - or any of us - from things we don't like...unless, of course, the things we don't like are truly interfering with our rights (our right to keep breathing, for example).
I can certainly see where you're coming from, and I don't really think we're at cross positions at all on this. We're just coming at it from different directions. The problem is that people fuck up on both sides - letting too much bullshit go on in very specific circumstances, whether its "you're never allowed to pray or even say that you're Christian!" or "your grade/job depends upon you praying with us". Admittedly, the latter doesn't happen as often as the former does anymore - people are overcompensating with regards to it (as people are wont to do - humans, as a general rule, are fucking morons). I'm with you on trying to fix that. But after hearing my coworkers and even my immediate manager talk about how "this country SHOULD be a Christian country, and those who don't like it should leave"... you'll understand if I'm very, very, VERY nervous about this kind of stuff.
Apparently the keyboard switch works only for the window you have open. I've had to do this for every window I've switched from (I'm at work, so sometimes I have to be really snappy with responses, and other times, I can be relaxed and take my time trying to reteach myself how to type. It's hard, but I'm actually getting better)
Or, at least the good stuff is. Sometimes you just get some jackass no-talent hack (like I would be, if I picked up a can of spray paint) who just scribbles his name on it like he's cool or something. Boo to him for ruining real art.
I did like this comic that is somewhat related, though (I love his work, though, so maybe it's just me): Bolt City
for some reason, firefox won't sink up with windows. if I'm in qwerty outside of firefox, it's in dvorak, when i'm in dvorak outside of firefox, it's in qwerty. odd.
Errr, think you can tell me how I can switch Firefox over to using my new Windows settings? Anyone?
I've been typing dvorak-style all morning, but I hate going back to firefox and having to use qwerty.
Realize that no one is against you not having a religion but many are against those who do have a religion even if they are not forcing you to conform.
Unfortunately, that's not true. I can even copy logs of conversations I've had with coworkers who believe everyone should be made to conform to Christian beliefs, which is essentially mandating that I become a defacto Christian. While you, yourself, and the people you know well wouldn't be for forcing me to believe what you believe, others do - at least in Western Pennsylvania. Again, Christians in this area do hold my lack of belief against me (and tell me so in plain English), but I don't mind that so much. They can have their opinions and they can treat me as they wish. But when they express a desire to promote laws persecuting me (a smaller subset, but still enough to concern me), that's when I started speaking out. I honestly don't care if a Christian likes or doesn't like what I do, just as I'm sure they don't need my approval on what they do. If I wanted to take a Bible and defecate on it, and they cared, well, that's too bad. If they want to read it literally, word for word, as the literal truth, and I don't like it, well...guess what? Too bad. What I think, or say about what they do, is completely different than trying to legislate what I think. Religious autonomy must be respected by the law. That is a fundamental concept that binds this country together. And having dealt with (and continue to deal with) many who want that to change, I'm not just going to sit down and shut up because the majority of people like you maintain a semblance of sanity.
Like I said before, I'm not telling you you can't pray. I'm not telling you that you can't tell ME to pray. But the moment you, through the government, tell me I have to pray is the moment where a line is crossed. I guess I'm a bastard, but I don't see why that is such a problem.
Well, now those costs are spread out to all customers - whether they want the filtering or not. So now you're forcing one small group to pay for something they don't want instead of the entire group. In a state mandate like this, either everyone should have to pay or no one should have to pay.
Theft of someone's property (one's own life). The cornerstone of society is that you cannot steal. You cannot take something that is not yours. That's an essential, cornerstone law for any human society to function.
So, I'm not allowed to tell Grandparent that his voting for those laws goes directly against the constitution and the spirit with this country was founded?
There goes freedom of speech, I guess. Oh wait, that is an option. Wee!
There is a line and there isn't. Let me elaborate. Free speech is important for all groups at all times. When someone wants to make a comment that is faith based - even if it isn't a diety-based-faith, then it crosses the line from being a worthwhile discussion to preaching dogma. Preaching dogma does nothing beneficial for anyone. You can't argue with faith that defies logic. It is faith. You can say it, but the moment you do, your words stop holding any meaning. Why argue with someone who gets a persistent "I win" no matter what argument you throw at them? It's pointless.
Politicians CAN speak about religion. I plainly stated they could. But there's a difference between talking about religion, or even trying to convert others, and using your position (to pass laws or make official proclamations) that respects an establishment of religion. That's all. I would posit the notion that a President who became elected and started preaching for Christianity a la Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell should never be elected again, just for abusing his power (though not being illegal). But that is my opinion. I would hope that most Americans would agree, but I can't guarantee that.
Maybe schools shouldn't preach. That shouldn't be their place. If they want to present a logical series of arguments and promote discussion of a certain viewpoint, then that's one thing. I think we're both using different definitions of the word "religion". To me, religion is a set of beliefs that is based solely in faith - with no logical argument behind them, and beyond logical argument. A strong belief set, however, that has various logical arguments supporting it and not obviously weak against any reasonable, logical argument, is not a religion. It's a justifiable belief set. And therein is the key. Justification. A set of (arguably) provable steps. The ability to constructively discuss the process and the result and not result in "well, it's just the way I believe" instead of "because, [insert stream of facts and suppositions here]". That's how I differentiate between the two. Admittedly, we can debate this.
Absolutely valid point. I'm not going to tell someone they can't wear a headscarf, though I don't like it, and I'm not going to tell someone they can't wear a cross, though I don't like it. There's a lot of things I don't like. That doesn't mean I have the right to make everyone do what I want. That sounds an awful lot like what I was against in my initial post.
On both sides - Christian and non-Christian, people seem to forget the fact that what we believe need not be believed by others. There is no validation by getting others to believe what you believe. Either your argument stands as it is and attracts those who also believe or it doesn't. You can try to convert those to your way of thought, but you can't have the government do it for you. Those are the rules and they allow a wide open playing field for everyone. I don't see any plausible reason for this to change.
I don't subscribe to any unprovable moral axioms - not when it comes to laws. I, myself, may believe that a woman shouldn't act the part of a harlot, but I would never suggest that it become illegal. I have no logical reason to force class, style, and dignity upon anyone.
You do make a good point, though. Going with a "gut" moral feeling, without logical reasoning backing it is just as bad as going with a "faith-based" moral statement. If you can't make a cohesive sequence of arguments for something that are based in logic - something everyone, everywhere, subscribes to on one level or another - then it shouldn't be a law. A good idea, maybe. A social norm, perhaps. But a law? No. You can obviously still maintain your opinion, but it is one thing to believe in something, and quite another to force me to live by your beliefs. I posit the notion that making me live as a Christian has the exact same effect with regards to freedom as making me be a Christian.
I agree with you that in this particular instance, their argument seems to be a bit misplaced. However, the fact that they're shifting the burden of censoring porn from the users who want to censor it for themselves it to a third party is wrong. If they were really that concerned about doing the right thing, why wouldn't they use some of their own tax dollars to subsidize filter software to be sold, or given, to their citizenry? Why shift the burden onto the ISPs? That's what bothers me - not the "free speech" implications. I mean, hell, the only people they'd be screwing if they paid for filtering software for those who want it is the rabid libertarians, and then only in an abstract manner. As it is now, they're shifting a new burden onto an ISP which is, in my opinion, unfair.
What comes next after they shift this burden onto the ISPs? Now that ISPs have to provide filtering capabilities to their subscribers, do they also have to provide an OS, in case the family in question is too cheap to buy it themselves? What about anti-virus? Do they also have to buy them a pony? Where does it end?
For that reason alone this law should be struck down - NOT because of a consumer "opt-in" program that results in censorship. Only if Utah would have the ability (and it may) to filter "inappropriate" political sites would this run afoul of our first amendment. Boy are they going to be fucked if that happens, though. Porn is a tough position to defend in a conservative culture such as ours, but political freedom of speech is quite another - at least to a majority of people.
It doesn't follow that an individual expressing their message is a separation of church and state UNLESS that individual is a state official and speaking AS a state official. If a representitive wants to preach to people, then fine. He can do that in his own time. But he can't use his office as a stepping stone to promote his religious beliefs. I don't think that's exceedingly restrictive.
I wasn't under the impression that Environmentalism, PETA, moral relativists or advocates of diversity were rooted in faith of a divine being. That's kind of the accepted definition of religion, so I'm not sure your argument holds all that much water - though I wouldn't want to write off the "moral relativists" part - they could well be metaphysical enough that they cross that line (though I wouldn't know, as I have never heard of that phrase before).
I believe I misused "deign" in my post - I didn't mean to say that it would be beneath me to know your beliefs, but that I wouldn't pretend as if I did. My apologies for any offense.
So...wait. Are you really trying to say I don't have the right to be free from religion?
Now, notice I said "I", as in "Myself, the individual" and not "We".
Keeping your religion out of my personal life insofar that I don't have to participate in any of your reindeer games without fear of government reprisal is absolutely necessary, just as keeping my lack of religion out of your personal life is necessary. All I want is for me to live my life without having to worry about dealing with your particular brand of religious dogma in a governmentally sanctioned manner. If you want to show up at my door with a Bible or a Koran and bang on it for a while, extolling the supposed virtues of your particular faith, then so be it. But trying to make me into a defacto Christian by passing Bible-based laws that have no logical backing is where I draw the line.
(I should note that most of these yous are of the general variety, not of the specific. I do not deign to know your particular belief set and I don't know that it necessarily matters one way or the other. I'm just telling you how I feel about those who want to trespass into my life for no other reason than they can't stand the thought of people holding to different beliefs than themselves. As if universal "belief" is indicitive of how "right" someone's faith is. But I'll stop ranting and take the -6000 flamebait modifiers now.)
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose you've never heard of analogies before? Rarely does an analogy contain the exact same quote AND the same context as the initial situation. I hope analogies, in general, make sense to you...
Wow. You have multiple choices of ISPs? I have 3, and one is AOL.
:(
Must be nice for you.
Not in the slightest. You're basically saying "It's too hard otherwise". I'm basically saying "That's too goddam bad". You can't fuck over those who are innocent just to punish those who are guilty. If that means you can't win, then fine, you can't win. Deal with it.
:] )
Or, of course, you can keep doing it, but you're still a prick. (General you, not specific you - I don't know you, so I wouldn't dare make that claim right off the bat
So...it's okay if he goes to Federal Pound-Him-In-The-Ass penitentiary just because he rented a car from a place that also rented a car to a crack dealer?
Huh?
Sorry, but that's still bullshit. He states it clearly in his article: You can't screw over innocents just to make the guilty pay. Does the your government put a neighbor family through torture just because you got a parking ticket? No. It's YOUR fault and YOU should be punished. Not some innocent bystander.
So...you hate me because of something some politician did right around the time I was born?
Real swift, aren't you? I mean, hell, by your logic (guilty by association), everyone in Iraq is guilty of murder just because their former President was.
Fuck you and your generalizations. I didn't vote for Bush, I sure as hell didn't support the war, and I definitely think we made a mistake (many mistakes, in fact). I did all of that, but I'm still 100% American - and proud of it. Again: Fuck you and your pathetic stereotyping. I thought the rest of the world was "smart" and we Americans were "dumb" - at least some of us can manage to differentiate between jackass politicians/talking heads and the individuals of a country.
I didn't mean justifiable in the "it's righteous" sense. I meant it in the "it has justification behind it - a sequence of steps used to get from point a to point b, in which everyone can follow". They're similar, but justifiable in the first sense is the "end result", whereas in the second sense, it's the actual reasoning behind it.
Also, the whole spirit of the constitution is based to protect the rights of everyone - not just the majority. If the majority were always right, we'd have a democracy, not a republic. But we don't.
I see we're both protecting ourselves against the actions of those around us. At my high school, a prayer group met every morning (and came in extra early on Wednesdays and had a prayer meeting in the library before school even started). The Administration was fine with it. I was completely okay with it - and would have continued to be okay with it, even if teachers/principles/other school officials were part of it.
There's a difference between a teacher sitting at her desk and quietly praying off and on throughout the day (though, practically speaking, she shouldn't be doing it instead of teaching - but if the class were busy with something else, there's nothing wrong with that). I respect her right to do such, and I especially respect the rights of the kids to do it too - as long as it isn't interfering with their work ("Sorry Mrs. Uglyface, I can't take your stupid pop quiz, I have to pray"). Those are completely fine, and I'll stand with you - hopefully with the ACLU - and fight against anyone who tries to stop that.
But when the teacher leads the class in prayer - during class time - that's where there's a problem. Before school officially begins and after school ends, I would have no problem with a teacher leading students in prayer (provided, of course, they kept that separate from class (no "if you come to my prayer meeting after school, I'll give you bonus points" crap)). But forcing a student to pray - to the point where a: their grade depends upon it or b: they'll face undue social duress (if, for example, a student is in a predominantly Christian area, and has all Christian students in the class, and their refusal to partake in prayer time because they're Jewish or Islamic - thus drawing their religious beliefs firmly into the open (something that can be very bad, if you're not part of the majority) - could then cause them all sorts of problems with the students who may see their different beliefs as something to be ashamed of).
If a group of kids wants to huddle in a corner and pray, fine. If they want to go to the Library and go off into some little nook and discuss the Bible, they should be able to. Of course, they can't be demanding special privileges, but to pray, or discuss The Word amongst themselves, or even with a teacher who isn't forcing the entire class into it (say, a study hall teacher), then go for it.
The same should hold true in the government. If some government workers want to go pray during their coffee break instead of discussing football, then good for them. If they want to put a cross on their desk, then good for them. It may be obnoxious to me, but just because something is obnoxious doesn't mean it should be illegal. The purpose of the government isn't to protect me - or any of us - from things we don't like...unless, of course, the things we don't like are truly interfering with our rights (our right to keep breathing, for example).
I can certainly see where you're coming from, and I don't really think we're at cross positions at all on this. We're just coming at it from different directions. The problem is that people fuck up on both sides - letting too much bullshit go on in very specific circumstances, whether its "you're never allowed to pray or even say that you're Christian!" or "your grade/job depends upon you praying with us". Admittedly, the latter doesn't happen as often as the former does anymore - people are overcompensating with regards to it (as people are wont to do - humans, as a general rule, are fucking morons). I'm with you on trying to fix that. But after hearing my coworkers and even my immediate manager talk about how "this country SHOULD be a Christian country, and those who don't like it should leave"... you'll understand if I'm very, very, VERY nervous about this kind of stuff.
Apparently the keyboard switch works only for the window you have open. I've had to do this for every window I've switched from (I'm at work, so sometimes I have to be really snappy with responses, and other times, I can be relaxed and take my time trying to reteach myself how to type. It's hard, but I'm actually getting better)
Or, at least the good stuff is. Sometimes you just get some jackass no-talent hack (like I would be, if I picked up a can of spray paint) who just scribbles his name on it like he's cool or something. Boo to him for ruining real art.
I did like this comic that is somewhat related, though (I love his work, though, so maybe it's just me): Bolt City
for some reason, firefox won't sink up with windows. if I'm in qwerty outside of firefox, it's in dvorak, when i'm in dvorak outside of firefox, it's in qwerty. odd.
Errr, think you can tell me how I can switch Firefox over to using my new Windows settings? Anyone? I've been typing dvorak-style all morning, but I hate going back to firefox and having to use qwerty.
most modern IM clients/services have an indicator of when you're typing. you should be safe as long as you're making an attempt at saying something.
Like I said before, I'm not telling you you can't pray. I'm not telling you that you can't tell ME to pray. But the moment you, through the government, tell me I have to pray is the moment where a line is crossed. I guess I'm a bastard, but I don't see why that is such a problem.
Things can go horribly awry when putting AC units in...
Well, now those costs are spread out to all customers - whether they want the filtering or not. So now you're forcing one small group to pay for something they don't want instead of the entire group. In a state mandate like this, either everyone should have to pay or no one should have to pay.
Theft of someone's property (one's own life). The cornerstone of society is that you cannot steal. You cannot take something that is not yours. That's an essential, cornerstone law for any human society to function.
So, I'm not allowed to tell Grandparent that his voting for those laws goes directly against the constitution and the spirit with this country was founded?
There goes freedom of speech, I guess. Oh wait, that is an option. Wee!
There is a line and there isn't. Let me elaborate. Free speech is important for all groups at all times. When someone wants to make a comment that is faith based - even if it isn't a diety-based-faith, then it crosses the line from being a worthwhile discussion to preaching dogma. Preaching dogma does nothing beneficial for anyone. You can't argue with faith that defies logic. It is faith. You can say it, but the moment you do, your words stop holding any meaning. Why argue with someone who gets a persistent "I win" no matter what argument you throw at them? It's pointless.
Politicians CAN speak about religion. I plainly stated they could. But there's a difference between talking about religion, or even trying to convert others, and using your position (to pass laws or make official proclamations) that respects an establishment of religion. That's all. I would posit the notion that a President who became elected and started preaching for Christianity a la Pat Robertson or Jerry Fallwell should never be elected again, just for abusing his power (though not being illegal). But that is my opinion. I would hope that most Americans would agree, but I can't guarantee that.
Maybe schools shouldn't preach. That shouldn't be their place. If they want to present a logical series of arguments and promote discussion of a certain viewpoint, then that's one thing. I think we're both using different definitions of the word "religion". To me, religion is a set of beliefs that is based solely in faith - with no logical argument behind them, and beyond logical argument. A strong belief set, however, that has various logical arguments supporting it and not obviously weak against any reasonable, logical argument, is not a religion. It's a justifiable belief set. And therein is the key. Justification. A set of (arguably) provable steps. The ability to constructively discuss the process and the result and not result in "well, it's just the way I believe" instead of "because, [insert stream of facts and suppositions here]". That's how I differentiate between the two. Admittedly, we can debate this.
Absolutely valid point. I'm not going to tell someone they can't wear a headscarf, though I don't like it, and I'm not going to tell someone they can't wear a cross, though I don't like it. There's a lot of things I don't like. That doesn't mean I have the right to make everyone do what I want. That sounds an awful lot like what I was against in my initial post.
On both sides - Christian and non-Christian, people seem to forget the fact that what we believe need not be believed by others. There is no validation by getting others to believe what you believe. Either your argument stands as it is and attracts those who also believe or it doesn't. You can try to convert those to your way of thought, but you can't have the government do it for you. Those are the rules and they allow a wide open playing field for everyone. I don't see any plausible reason for this to change.
Check cards for life. \m/ (-_-) \m/
I don't subscribe to any unprovable moral axioms - not when it comes to laws. I, myself, may believe that a woman shouldn't act the part of a harlot, but I would never suggest that it become illegal. I have no logical reason to force class, style, and dignity upon anyone.
You do make a good point, though. Going with a "gut" moral feeling, without logical reasoning backing it is just as bad as going with a "faith-based" moral statement. If you can't make a cohesive sequence of arguments for something that are based in logic - something everyone, everywhere, subscribes to on one level or another - then it shouldn't be a law. A good idea, maybe. A social norm, perhaps. But a law? No. You can obviously still maintain your opinion, but it is one thing to believe in something, and quite another to force me to live by your beliefs. I posit the notion that making me live as a Christian has the exact same effect with regards to freedom as making me be a Christian.
I agree with you that in this particular instance, their argument seems to be a bit misplaced. However, the fact that they're shifting the burden of censoring porn from the users who want to censor it for themselves it to a third party is wrong. If they were really that concerned about doing the right thing, why wouldn't they use some of their own tax dollars to subsidize filter software to be sold, or given, to their citizenry? Why shift the burden onto the ISPs? That's what bothers me - not the "free speech" implications. I mean, hell, the only people they'd be screwing if they paid for filtering software for those who want it is the rabid libertarians, and then only in an abstract manner. As it is now, they're shifting a new burden onto an ISP which is, in my opinion, unfair.
What comes next after they shift this burden onto the ISPs? Now that ISPs have to provide filtering capabilities to their subscribers, do they also have to provide an OS, in case the family in question is too cheap to buy it themselves? What about anti-virus? Do they also have to buy them a pony? Where does it end?
For that reason alone this law should be struck down - NOT because of a consumer "opt-in" program that results in censorship. Only if Utah would have the ability (and it may) to filter "inappropriate" political sites would this run afoul of our first amendment. Boy are they going to be fucked if that happens, though. Porn is a tough position to defend in a conservative culture such as ours, but political freedom of speech is quite another - at least to a majority of people.
Or so I hope...
It doesn't follow that an individual expressing their message is a separation of church and state UNLESS that individual is a state official and speaking AS a state official. If a representitive wants to preach to people, then fine. He can do that in his own time. But he can't use his office as a stepping stone to promote his religious beliefs. I don't think that's exceedingly restrictive.
I wasn't under the impression that Environmentalism, PETA, moral relativists or advocates of diversity were rooted in faith of a divine being. That's kind of the accepted definition of religion, so I'm not sure your argument holds all that much water - though I wouldn't want to write off the "moral relativists" part - they could well be metaphysical enough that they cross that line (though I wouldn't know, as I have never heard of that phrase before).
I believe I misused "deign" in my post - I didn't mean to say that it would be beneath me to know your beliefs, but that I wouldn't pretend as if I did. My apologies for any offense.
So...wait. Are you really trying to say I don't have the right to be free from religion?
Now, notice I said "I", as in "Myself, the individual" and not "We".
Keeping your religion out of my personal life insofar that I don't have to participate in any of your reindeer games without fear of government reprisal is absolutely necessary, just as keeping my lack of religion out of your personal life is necessary. All I want is for me to live my life without having to worry about dealing with your particular brand of religious dogma in a governmentally sanctioned manner. If you want to show up at my door with a Bible or a Koran and bang on it for a while, extolling the supposed virtues of your particular faith, then so be it. But trying to make me into a defacto Christian by passing Bible-based laws that have no logical backing is where I draw the line.
(I should note that most of these yous are of the general variety, not of the specific. I do not deign to know your particular belief set and I don't know that it necessarily matters one way or the other. I'm just telling you how I feel about those who want to trespass into my life for no other reason than they can't stand the thought of people holding to different beliefs than themselves. As if universal "belief" is indicitive of how "right" someone's faith is. But I'll stop ranting and take the -6000 flamebait modifiers now.)