alt.education

On Apr 5, 11:21=A0pm, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 07:31:38 -0700 (PDT), Raymond
> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 4, 8:44=A0pm, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 00:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Raymond
> >> wrote:
> >> >> >You're blind and wrong. At some level of intensity proselytization
> >> >> >obviously becomes harassment.
>
> >> >> People only have freedom OF religion, because they have freedom FROM=

> >> >> all the others =A0in order to practice their own.
>
> >> >Nice remark, I was thinking people should have freedom to HAVE A
> >> >religion, and that is what this is all about, not freedom of or from
>
> But not NOT TO HAVE ONE.

A double negative seem to say you think they should, "not Not" really
I just questing as your statement does not seem to say anything.

> >> >but just the freedom to HAVE such, with out others fighting over our
> >> >freedom since they want to be bound by what ever they want and do not
> >> >want you to have the freedom they claim is theirs not yours or mine.
> >> >Lots of people week minded ones that can not accept anyone or anything=

> >> >saying they have some kind of freedom, unless they give the permission=

> >> >to say so.
>
> >> So you deny people who just want to go on with their own lives, their
> >> own freedom of religious conscience?
>
> Obviously you do.

Nice for you to think so, I sure do not follow your line of thinking
or agree with your statment, then it would be nice if you did not try
to fit me into lack of freedom be it religious or not.

>
> >No they can have such rights as long as they let me have my right to
> >my own freedom of religious conscience, =A0I am glad to work with them
> >and share with them what they have as long as they let me share what I
> >believe. =A0If they deny me such a right then do unto others as they do
> >unto you, would seem to fit. =A0I see them no I having that problem and
> >I believe if you re-read what I did say, you would see that. =A0I am
> >replying to what the other guy said and so my reply was limited to his
> >statements, so I do not see any reason to even think I would deny
> >people the freedom to have or not have a religious feeling. =A0 If I did
> >not answer your question, please restate it and I will try to do
> >better in my reply.
>
> Look up "straw man".

Ok here is the meaning "1.A person used as a cover for some
questionable activity 2.A weak or sham argument set up to be easily
refuted, 3. An effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away
from seeds" next time it would be nice to check such words out, then
if you can not, I suppose I can and did. Enjoy.

It would be decent if you could answer questions once and a while, or
is straw man the only term you think you understood?