[mugs99]

I think I kinda understand the words if and is

I saw no evidence of that in your juvenile reply.

"If you're gonna try anywayz though, feel free to talk down to me."

I have no need or desire to immitate you.

It's unfortunate that your beliefs have closed your mind so tightly that you seem unable to understand my response to you. Christianity recognizes many prophets. Jesus is not one of them. Trying to equate Paine to the prophets or to Jesus in any way is ignorant, less you wanna try to tell me that nature's god spoke to him or that people thought it did. That's not what you're trying to tell me, is it?

No, I wasn't born yesterday. Hell, I've even been to the county fair! I even realize that you have three Gods and a whole slew of prophets and demons. So, what has that got to do with anything?

Modern deists & agnostics could learn something from Paine. Instead of running away screaming from every idea that comes from someone else's religious teachings, they might actually find truths that speak to them in the texts too

ROFL!
Nothing like talking down and lecturing another on dogma! Two sides to that coin fella. I don't see you willing to learn other dogma from someone else.

What makes you think I'm trying to instigate you into doing anything?

Little bit of humor, a concept you haven't discovered yet. Sorry I forgot to put in the ROTFLMAO for you.

Still, you're starting to make me feel old here. SCOTUS never really got around to doing it until it was within my lifetime. How bout you? Were you born before or after 1961 & 1978, the years the mighty robed deities finally straightened out Maryland & Tennessee?

ROFL!
Born before 1940. Does that make me an expert, dad?
How could such a smart guy like you forget the SCOTUS decision of 1892? Trinity ring a bell? That one went in your favor. No complaints about the mighty robed deities on that one?
...

[GoLightly]

"My side" is the one that has the federal government staying out of religion. If/when faced with religious cases they should decline, citing lack of jurisdiction, which would mean that even some stupid state rulings or laws might have to be allowed to stand. The feds should only step in if some more basic civil rights, such as life & liberty started getting reattached to the religious question. If people do not like the way their state is addressing the religious question, they can work to get their state to change or they can vote with their feet & move to a state more in tune with their beliefs. As we nationalize the question, freedom of movement loses most of it's meaning. Why move if all you are able to find is more of the same?

Nothing like talking down and lecturing another on dogma! Two sides to that coin fella. I don't see you willing to learn other dogma from someone else.

I would flunk the religious tests of colonial times, because I am not a member of any church & haven't been since I was a teen. I disagree with the politics of most, if not all of the organized faiths.

Learning other people's dogma has never been a problem for me, other than I forget more of it than I remember. It's not that it offends me, rather, much of it looks hollow or empty to me. I read "Reason" & it looks like meanderings of an author's bitterness spilling out, though it is likely that it "speaks" to you. Different strokes for different folks...

It is not that I want to inflict my world view or beliefs on anyone, but I resent the hell about the way that secularism has been inflicted on me & mine. It was done to me in the name of freedom, but it is no different than what was done in earlier days in the name of state religion.