DeepDiver wrote:


Btw, I am not a Christian; in fact, I am an atheist (based upon years of
my own scientific reasoning). But only an ignorant fool -- or an
agenda-driven revisionist -- would try to argue that America was not
founded on Judeo-Christian values and precepts. As for our current
society, I have MUCH MORE to fear from the militant atheists on the Left
(who are trying to install an authoritarian State as our new "Deity" and
Marxism as our new "religion"), than I have ever had to worry about
"fundamentalists" espousing their Christian faith. And my second greatest
fear is from radical Islamists, whom the Left has dangerously chosen to
embrace.

- Michael


Pot Kettle Black

In other words, where is the proof for your point of view? Can you prove
you are not a Christian? Do you have sources for the claims you make about
the groups you mentioned?

Fred




I just knew some shallow-thinker would try to make that absurd comparison. I
don't have to prove my point of view, my beliefs (or lack thereof), or my
opinions. They are MINE. I'm not attributing them to anyone else.

There is a world of difference between my saying "I say..." and my saying
"John said...". In the former, you can either take me at my word
(particularly when we're discussing opinions or faith), or you can not:
that's up to you (and is a decision you have to make with every statement
made by every person you ever meet or hear throughout your life -- whether
in person, or on TV, or in print, or via the Internet). However, in the
latter case, how do you really know what John said, when you only have my
statement to go on? Even if you trust me, I may have made a mistake. Without
offering proof to back up my claim of John's statement, we have nothing.
That's why, as a witness in a court of law, a person's testimony as to what
he himself said is admissible, but his claims as to what someone else said
is inadmissible as hearsay.


There are *all kinds* of different hearsay rules in
the legal world. And each one of them is as "right" as another. It's true
that in U.S. -criminal- cases there is a constitutional right to "confront"
hostile witnesses. When possible. With various exceptions. But otherwise,
there are no hard and fast rules about hearsay. The most common-occurring
distinction is that *juries* are protected fairly strongly against hearing
hearsay. But when *judges* try the case without a jury, the hearsay
rules get
relaxed. In deference to the presumed greater skill of the judges.

Fred