On 1/26/2012 4:53 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Han wrote:

It irks me just a pesky little bit, but as an agnostic,it's just a
really tiny little bit. It's your SCOTUS who have interpreted the
amendment to mean that the state shouldn't interfere in church and
religious businesses, and tha includes offically allowing/sponsoring
religious expressions. I think that is generally a goodT thing. As
mentioned I'm against anything that allows or sponsors
proselytizing.

But proselytizing is an integral part of both Christianity and Islam.

To the faithful, prohibiting proselytizing is no different than
prohibiting baptism or cutting off the heads of unbelievers.

proselytize all you want, but not in public schools. it should be
pointed out that proselytizing is NOT an integral part to lots of
other religions

If the government prohibits proselytizing in government schools then, by
definition, the government is meddling in the free exercize of religion. In
your view, it seems, you would require those dedicated to spreading their
word to affiliate themselves with a foreign deity to avoid offending the
irreligious.



I believe wholeheartedly in religious freedom and I have every right to
say "no thank you" when someone tries to share their faith with me. If
they don't understand "no" then I believe I have a right to use much
stronger measures to convince the proselytizer that I'm not interested
in their religion. I've found that pepper spray is quite effective.

TDD