Replies

What Colofornian was pointing out, imo, was your inconsistency.

What inconsistency? This is what has my mind reeling. This is a thread that began with the question of why so much religious discussion. I added my $.02 that I hate to see all of the infighting. I didn't disparage anybody's religion. Another poster replied saying that Mormons often get attacked here, and I said hey, I don't mind Mormons, myself. Where is the inconsistency there? Where is there even room for inconsistency in any of my statements? I can't help but think that with you guys, anyone who is not explicitly and aggressively FOR you, must be against you.

I generally stay off of the religious forum precisely because it is not an area where I think there is any worth in arguing here, although I will jump in occasionally when I see some blatant Catholic-bashing. However, the religious bickering often extends way beyond the religion forum and hijacks all kinds of strictly political/news threads. That's where I see most of it, and that's where it is absolutely counter-productive to the main purpose of this site.

Keep in mind that ol' collie came after me, not me after him/her/it.

What inconsistency? This is what has my mind reeling.

At least a few.

On post #220 you were telling me to "lighten up". By post #230, about 75 minutes later, were you "lightening up" in your own posts??? (Well, not unless you label a comment about "a bunch of the very same useless denominational crap that I just got done saying had no useful business on a political forum" as "lightening up.")

Therefore, by post #237, which I suggest you re or re-read, I pointed out your biggest inconsistency: That somehow YOU "getting" at OUR throats over our religious vision being integrated with our political vision is apparently A-OK for YOU to do...
...but for some of US to have taken umbrage over how others have merged their religious vision with their political vision...
...(I mean, what? You haven't seen all the Mormon "White Horse prophesy" threads about how the Lds will rise up & save our constitution?)...
...then what we say is relegated by YOU as "useless crap" deserving of "no useful business"???

IOW, why were you initially preaching interdenominational tolerance over a merged religious-political viewpoint -- but you apparently had no tolerance for our distinctive religious-political viewpoint? If tolerance is the upmost "bottom line" in order to remain "united," then why were you showing your "disuniting" spirit with us? (You should have practiced your sermon of tolerance and tolerated what we've said -- because re-look @ post #230 -- hardly a post of "tolerance" on your part)

Therefore, that's why I asked you in post #237: Or have you joined the leftist doctrine of "tolerance for thee but not for me?" crowd without even knowing you're an effective proselyte of it???

You can't preach tolerance, and simultaneously be intolerant of us, without us noting the inconsistency.