And that last comment you made and deleted was wrong again. Besides the basic ad hom, you also state again that the discussion is about suing theists if they step on your toes. It really isn't. That is your discussion, but everyone else is discussing the articles on theists suing their employers.
Bill: I went through the conversation again. I started with the second bout of heat and looked at every comment.
I edited the blog and it now states that the discussion is closed, thanks for participating. I don't think that because I get to have the last word I can abuse the privilege. My apologies.
I will post here the comments and the errors in communication that I saw.
This and my other comments here you can delete.
From the Sunday Planet and my thoughts:
Bill: I have looked again at the conversation, and whether you think you provoked people or not, it appears to me that you did.
After MJ's comment on staffing on page four, you state on page three that "To me it is clear that the first amendment does not put limits on religious freedom," (which by the way is wrong). You started the pushing.
In that statement you go after MJ by telling her that her thoughts are "simplistic."
You say it opens the door for bigots, I reply with a joke about bigots stepping on your toes. Susan states, “If your rights harm me then they’re no longer your rights.”
You then address Susan, “I feel like I’m arguing in circles, “ and somehow make this into a discussion about suing theists, “but if you are suing someone because of the way they practice their religious beliefs keep in mind their religious freedoms are guaranteed by the first amendment.” All encompassing statement, but of course the article is about theists suing employers.
I say the article is about theists suing employers.
Then MJ comments on how the first amendment is used in cases of free speech and religious freedom which proves the point that free speech and freedom of religion is not always a given in law.
Then you say if I think theists are infringing on my rights sue them.
Then you go back to disliking my term “jackal,” and in a brilliant move of illogical maneuvering you go back at MJ and pick the example that everyone has already agreed with, and that is the long hair dude. Did you pick the muslim suing for not having a Friday off at the expense of others? No. Then you continue the belittling statement about stepping on toes, once again diminishing someone’s intelligent comment. Picking and choosing your argument sucks.
Then for some odd reason you turn on me stating, “And Neal, the fact that you see a difference between a theist doing the suing and you doing the suing speaks volumes.” What I am talking about is the articles we are discussing. You are involved in the straw man fallacy there. I make no statement about anyone suing anyone, I am referring to the articles only.
Those moves earned you sarcasm from the crowd, was that your goal?
Then again after MJ with falsehoods. You say that two out of three examples were about hair. No. The police officer one was not just about hair, but safety. The man with the long beard giving an assailant something to grab on to will not live long. Freedom of stupidity is not a right.
In the same sentence you say bitching about it will not make it right. Who was bitching? Everyone?
From the discussion, the points made by many, including yours, are correct. We know how the law stands in regard to free speech and religious freedom. We know our civil rights.
My comments are normally aggravating, which is why I don’t care about someone bitching at me, but MJ never made a personal remark towards you, neither did Susan until you decided to not listen anymore. There were valid points you ignored and as far as I can tell, you’re passive aggressive statements started the fire.
You never acknowledged that others do have a point, you ignore.
Your last comment:
MY BRAIN HURTS! You complain that theists are stopping on your toes, infringing on your rights, I tell you to sue THEM and you say that's not what we were talking about. Carl pogo sticking Sagan! Are you dumb as a box of rocks or just yankin
Bill: I think you misread something. At one time during the conversation I agreed with civil rights being very important. I understood your point and agree with it. I also agreed that a couple of the examples that made it into the column were pretty lame.
The opposing views that were being discussed was how far do those rights go. Like MJ stated, if you falsely yell fire in a crowded theater and someone gets hurt, freedom of speech does not protect you.
I think everyone deserves the utmost protection from the law, including theists. But as in the fire example, the same holds true with them. They can not circumvent laws of the country because of religion. At the work place, religion does not get first dibs on everything because they are religious.
Regardless, the conversation wasn't working any more. And yes, it wasn't only you who got a little overboard with their statements.
Adriana stated a discussion on the first amendment, maybe that would interest you?