Anti Boy Scouts....GRRRRRR.

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
All they'd have to do to gain full access and support again is abandon their stance of hate. Then they can have all of my tax dollars they want, as well as my unflagging support.</end quote></div>

Now you've gone way overboard. This is a free country and groups are free to have their motives. There is no hate here. Just "because of your actions/choices you are not welcome".

Hate is to actively harm others. There is no hate here so stop the PC agenda.

there is in fact discrimination. There is no denying that. They discriminate because they dislike and do not believe in them. They could very well hate them. Hate does not mean to actively harm others. To actively harm others is an action whereas hate itself is an emotion. Hate may cause certain actions but it is cause not an effect. There is very well a difference.

What PC agenda is this? I'm sorry Anti-Discrimination was PC. My bad. YAY for discrimination! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

 

[FiddleDD]

ha, I think the sarcasm left me at 12:01am when I turned into a pumpkin

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: compuwiz1
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: FiddleDD
I wasn't going to dignify compuwhiz by saying if he had actually read the thread he would see that I am married also.

The Atlanta troup is the largest troup in scouts and it is mainly made up of young men with a "non-white" proud heritage. The BSA also have urban troops set up. In 1926 there were 248 all-Black troops. (that's a lot considering that was close to the beginning of scouting).Note the date, and how many race problems were not solved nearly that early on. I feel bad for persecution of any race or religion throughout time.</end quote></div>


Turn on your sacasm detector, ladies. I was just razzing a couple old timers. Joke, ok?
</end quote></div>

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
there is in fact discrimination. There is no denying that. They discriminate because they dislike and do not believe in them. They could very well hate them. Hate does not mean to actively harm others. To actively harm others is an action whereas hate itself is an emotion. Hate may cause certain actions but it is cause not an effect. There is very well a difference.

What PC agenda is this? I'm sorry Anti-Discrimination was PC. My bad. YAY for discrimination! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

There is a fine line in the battle against discrimination. How intolerant can you be of intolerance? How much hate can you have for hate? Keep this up too long and eventually, you get your head turn so far up your ass that you find yourself asking stupid questions like should the KKK be allowed basic freedom of speech rights, or should a private organization be allowed to set its own membership criteria?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: waggy
true. but is to openly discriminate against gays.
</end quote></div>

Private organization. The can do whatever they want.

As a fan of techno and the club scene I have been openly discrimated against for being straight. I don't get my panties in a wad because of it.

OMG! The bartender isn't getting me a drink! Gee, wonder why.

where in this thread have i said they can't do that. in fact i said they have EVERY RIGHT to do so.

all i have said if they are going to then they should not receive any government subsidiary's.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
there is in fact discrimination. There is no denying that. They discriminate because they dislike and do not believe in them. They could very well hate them. Hate does not mean to actively harm others. To actively harm others is an action whereas hate itself is an emotion. Hate may cause certain actions but it is cause not an effect. There is very well a difference.

What PC agenda is this? I'm sorry Anti-Discrimination was PC. My bad. YAY for discrimination! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!
</end quote></div>
There is a fine line in the battle against discrimination. How intolerant can you be of intolerance? How much hate can you have for hate? Keep this up too long and eventually, you get your head turn so far up your ass that you find yourself asking stupid questions like should the KKK be allowed basic freedom of speech rights, or should a private organization be allowed to set its own membership criteria?

I never said that the organization shouldn't be allowed to set its own membership criteria but I can criticize them as much as a like for it, which were my posts in this thread. I said I did not like them because they would discriminate against me. I said I do not believe that their policies are right and then had an argument about me being a tard and other things.

Keep generalizing. I always see the slippery slope argument and it's a logical fallacy. It is. Deal with it.

Stop trying to stretch the point. Slippery slope arguments always use it. Z is horrible and if we allow A then Z might occur. Ifyou have nothing against A then either shut up or say it. Talking about Z is mutilating the subject at hand.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
All they'd have to do to gain full access and support again is abandon their stance of hate. Then they can have all of my tax dollars they want, as well as my unflagging support.</end quote></div>

Now you've gone way overboard. This is a free country and groups are free to have their motives. There is no hate here. Just "because of your actions/choices you are not welcome".

Hate is to actively harm others. There is no hate here so stop the PC agenda.

</end quote></div> there is in fact discrimination. There is no denying that. They discriminate because they dislike and do not believe in them. They could very well hate them. Hate does not mean to actively harm others. To actively harm others is an action whereas hate itself is an emotion. Hate may cause certain actions but it is cause not an effect. There is very well a difference.

What PC agenda is this? I'm sorry Anti-Discrimination was PC. My bad. YAY for discrimination! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

What is so wrong with discrimination? Seriously. What is so wrong with discrimination? You do it everyday. Discrimination happens in many ways and forms, it's part of the decision making process. There are certain things protected by the consitution and the bill or rights but other than that I'll take my freedom. That freedom means my organization cannot not allow you to be a part of it. You are free to form you own organization. That's freedom.

Freedom does not mean entitlement. Freedom means being able to choose your own path in life without federal government imposed barriers.

 

[QueBert]

if a man is openly gay he can't be a scout leader, I could call that bigotry wouldn't you? Same deal with Atheists. I never said the scouts were bigots, I said scouts weren't the problem. It's the people behind the scouts. I use to hear them on TV trying to defend why gay men shouldn't be allowed to be Scout leaders, and frankly I found it to be pathetic and sad. And children are know what's going on, so if I was 10 and knew the BSA didn't want gay people around that might effect my views on gay people no? The Boy Scouts I knew growing up were very proud of being a scout.

Like I said watch the Pen & Teller segment, it's more then just 2 magician's opinions, they take facts and present them. You cam say they mostly give a one sided view but even if that's true, the one side they show is pretty strong. Kids who are Scouts learn a lot, great. That doesn't change what the adults in the group are all about

 

[Praxis1452]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
All they'd have to do to gain full access and support again is abandon their stance of hate. Then they can have all of my tax dollars they want, as well as my unflagging support.</end quote></div>

Now you've gone way overboard. This is a free country and groups are free to have their motives. There is no hate here. Just "because of your actions/choices you are not welcome".

Hate is to actively harm others. There is no hate here so stop the PC agenda.

</end quote></div> there is in fact discrimination. There is no denying that. They discriminate because they dislike and do not believe in them. They could very well hate them. Hate does not mean to actively harm others. To actively harm others is an action whereas hate itself is an emotion. Hate may cause certain actions but it is cause not an effect. There is very well a difference.

What PC agenda is this? I'm sorry Anti-Discrimination was PC. My bad. YAY for discrimination! Hurrah! Hurrah! Hurrah!

</end quote></div>

What is so wrong with discrimination? Seriously. What is so wrong with discrimination? You do it everyday. Discrimination happens in many ways and forms, it's part of the decision making process. There are certain things protected by the consitution and the bill or rights but other than that I'll take my freedom. That freedom means my organization cannot not allow you to be a part of it. You are free to form you own organization. That's freedom.

Freedom does not mean entitlement. Freedom means being able to choose your own path in life without federal government imposed barriers.
</end quote></div>
Discrimination is wrong when it happens to me. That's when I'm against it. That's why I posted in this thread. Because certain traits I have would cause me to be discriminated against.

My definition of freedom is very different but it's more of the egoist philosophy created by Max Stirner or moreso along the lines of Anarcho individualism. Let's not mention freedom because honestly it'd be a huge huge post.


edit: I see my definition of freedom would greatly help explain . Gimme a while to type up another post. I'll see if I can make it short.

 

[Praxis1452]

Freedom to you spidey07 may be simply to start another organization. But freedom to me is more individual and personal. It is not objective and it never will be. Freedom is not for everyone. Everyone has the opportunity to have it. Some never will.

Freedom is to do whatever you like irregardless of anything else. If someone tries to stop you then as a free man you should circumvent him or her and find or try to do whatever you like. Now this action is not reactionary. It does not occur as a reaction to some authoritative force but rather as a result of your own will and mind and spirit. Stirner uses the example of Jesus. Jesus did not act because it would be against the goverment and against the established religions. He acted because it was his will to do so.

Freedom is not based on altruism. It is to take your view of the world and make it so. To create what you want and desire. To atleast try. It does not always have to succeed but as a free man if you are not bound by others' (a slave) will then you MUST project your own.

"One can do more with a handful of might than a bagful of right."

You may simply respect the organization that discriminates you but I do not. I will criticize and will continue to criticize them. If I have to work to end my discrimination is that entitlement? Entitlement seems to mean think you deserve something. But that is altogether different from creating.

Freedom means to choose your own path in life regardless of barriers.

What a short vision of freedom most people have. ugh

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I never said that the organization shouldn't be allowed to set its own membership criteria but I can criticize them as much as a like for it, which were my posts in this thread. I said I did not like them because they would discriminate against me. I said I do not believe that their policies are right and then had an argument about me being a tard and other things.

Keep generalizing. I always see the slippery slope argument and it's a logical fallacy. It is. Deal with it.

Stop trying to stretch the point. Slippery slope arguments always use it. Z is horrible and if we allow A then Z might occur. Ifyou have nothing against A then either shut up or say it. Talking about Z is mutilating the subject at hand.

Put the crack pipe down, commie. Slippery slope is only a fallacy when used incorrectly (which I did not in this case). And your emotional tirade here didn't help your argument.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I never said that the organization shouldn't be allowed to set its own membership criteria but I can criticize them as much as a like for it, which were my posts in this thread. I said I did not like them because they would discriminate against me. I said I do not believe that their policies are right and then had an argument about me being a tard and other things.

Keep generalizing. I always see the slippery slope argument and it's a logical fallacy. It is. Deal with it.

Stop trying to stretch the point. Slippery slope arguments always use it. Z is horrible and if we allow A then Z might occur. Ifyou have nothing against A then either shut up or say it. Talking about Z is mutilating the subject at hand.</end quote></div>

Put the crack pipe down, commie. Slippery slope is only a fallacy when used incorrectly (which I did not in this case). And your emotional tirade here didn't help your argument.

Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: QueBert
if a man is openly gay he can't be a scout leader, I could call that bigotry wouldn't you? Same deal with Atheists. I never said the scouts were bigots, I said scouts weren't the problem. It's the people behind the scouts. I use to hear them on TV trying to defend why gay men shouldn't be allowed to be Scout leaders, and frankly I found it to be pathetic and sad. And children are know what's going on, so if I was 10 and knew the BSA didn't want gay people around that might effect my views on gay people no? The Boy Scouts I knew growing up were very proud of being a scout.

Like I said watch the Pen & Teller segment, it's more then just 2 magician's opinions, they take facts and present them. You cam say they mostly give a one sided view but even if that's true, the one side they show is pretty strong. Kids who are Scouts learn a lot, great. That doesn't change what the adults in the group are all about

So in otherwords you disagree with their stance? Pathetic and sad you call it but that's because you dont agree with them. The hypocrisy is strong.

"open minded" really means "you don't think like I do and I will force my beliefs upon you and call you a bigot if you don't agree."

Stop this PC madness.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: QueBert
if a man is openly gay he can't be a scout leader, I could call that bigotry wouldn't you? Same deal with Atheists. I never said the scouts were bigots, I said scouts weren't the problem. It's the people behind the scouts. I use to hear them on TV trying to defend why gay men shouldn't be allowed to be Scout leaders, and frankly I found it to be pathetic and sad. And children are know what's going on, so if I was 10 and knew the BSA didn't want gay people around that might effect my views on gay people no? The Boy Scouts I knew growing up were very proud of being a scout.

Like I said watch the Pen & Teller segment, it's more then just 2 magician's opinions, they take facts and present them. You cam say they mostly give a one sided view but even if that's true, the one side they show is pretty strong. Kids who are Scouts learn a lot, great. That doesn't change what the adults in the group are all about

I'm curious... you like Penn & Teller here, but what was your take on their Wal-Mart episode, when their argument was that basically the whole anti-Wal-Mart movement in the US is just a hidden agenda of the pro-union faction of the Democratic party? Penn even pushed this through by pointing out that 1 million Wal-Mart employees times the usual union dues equal $Cha-ching.
That one's on youtube as well if you haven't seen it.

 

[Kelemvor]

Do they still ban Gay kids or have they changed back in that regard? I'm an Eagle Scout and ended all ties with the BSA when they announced they'd not let gay kids in. Never went back and have thrown away most of my stuff I had from back then.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
All they'd have to do to gain full access and support again is abandon their stance of hate. Then they can have all of my tax dollars they want, as well as my unflagging support.</end quote></div>

Now you've gone way overboard. This is a free country and groups are free to have their motives. There is no hate here. Just "because of your actions/choices you are not welcome".

Hate is to actively harm others. There is no hate here so stop the PC agenda.

I disagree 100%. All forms of bigotry are hatred at their core. It is full discrimination, the same as posting a 'Whites Only' sign on the door, and as such I don't believe they should receive any public support or government access. I have no problem with private support of course, just public. I will not support anyone/anything which advocates discrimination.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.

:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.

 

[Platypus]

PrinceofWands, your Gandhi quote is perfect for this thread and people like Fettsbabe who consistantly dodged my question with enough logical fallacies to teach a 101 course.

That is one thing that I still don't understand about the BSA's stance. I'm not debating their right to have said stance, it just doesn't make sense to me and no one can give me a clear answer. You religious lot out there need to help me understand what I view as ridiculous hypocrisy.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: spidey07
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
All they'd have to do to gain full access and support again is abandon their stance of hate. Then they can have all of my tax dollars they want, as well as my unflagging support.</end quote></div>

Now you've gone way overboard. This is a free country and groups are free to have their motives. There is no hate here. Just "because of your actions/choices you are not welcome".

Hate is to actively harm others. There is no hate here so stop the PC agenda.

</end quote></div>

I disagree 100%. All forms of bigotry are hatred at their core. It is full discrimination, the same as posting a 'Whites Only' sign on the door, and as such I don't believe they should receive any public support or government access. I have no problem with private support of course, just public. I will not support anyone/anything which advocates discrimination.

Stop the PC nonsense. You can't force your views on other people.

Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Platypus
PrinceofWands, your Gandhi quote is perfect for this thread and people like Fettsbabe who consistantly dodged my question with enough logical fallacies to teach a 101 course.

That is one thing that I still don't understand about the BSA's stance. I'm not debating their right to have said stance, it just doesn't make sense to me and no one can give me a clear answer. You religious lot out there need to help me understand what I view as ridiculous hypocrisy.

I'm not religious, thank you. I'm defending the right of a private organization to determine its own membership criteria. I don't care about any of the other arguments.
There's something very odd about people who don't understand the fact that your Constitutional rights defend you from the government, not the government from the people, or the people from the people. What's next? Are you going to claim it's a violation of your freedom of religion rights when one of the JW's knock on your door? Or are you exercising the freedom to choose your own path in life while denying others their right to do the same?

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.
</end quote></div>
:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.

The boy scouts aren't free to discriminate me without repurcussions. If a celebrity makes a comment and gets criticized I'd bet they want the freedom to say what they want without the public puttig up barriers to them.

If a group decides to discriminate they are immune because they should be free? I'm not for some goverment mandated disbandment. I have criticized them on the basis of their beliefs. It is my right to do so as it is their right to discriminate. It is both our freedoms. And it is yours to criticize me, etc... But of course it's hypocrisy.

oh and nice try being fake. If you had felt that was a concession you wouldn't even feel the need to try to rebut. IT was obviously a parody of your post and you recognized that.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.
</end quote></div>
:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.</end quote></div>
The boy scouts aren't free to discriminate me without repurcussions. If a celebrity makes a comment and gets criticized I'd bet they want the freedom to say what they want without the public puttig up barriers to them.

If a group decides to discriminate they are immune because they should be free? I'm not for some goverment mandated disbandment. I have criticized them on the basis of their beliefs. It is my right to do so as it is their right to discriminate. It is both our freedoms. And it is yours to criticize me, etc... But of course it's hypocrisy.

oh and nice try being fake. If you had felt that was a concession you wouldn't even feel the need to try to rebut. IT was obviously a parody of your post and you recognized that.

you are right.

they are not without repurucssions. one is the fact that they do not get goverment funding. or and negitive publicty.

but they do have a right as a private orginization ot accept who they want.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Platypus
PrinceofWands, your Gandhi quote is perfect for this thread and people like Fettsbabe who consistantly dodged my question with enough logical fallacies to teach a 101 course.

That is one thing that I still don't understand about the BSA's stance. I'm not debating their right to have said stance, it just doesn't make sense to me and no one can give me a clear answer. You religious lot out there need to help me understand what I view as ridiculous hypocrisy.</end quote></div>

I'm not religious, thank you. I'm defending the right of a private organization to determine its own membership criteria. I don't care about any of the other arguments.
There's something very odd about people who don't understand the fact that your Constitutional rights defend you from the government, not the government from the people, or the people from the people. What's next? Are you going to claim it's a violation of your freedom of religion rights when one of the JW's knock on your door? Or are you exercising the freedom to choose your own path in life while denying others their right to do the same?

Not at all, I wasn't really even addressing you here. I'm curious to hear what christians think about this policy. The private org can do w/e the hell they feel they want to do, you'll notice I've not debated that fact anywhere in this entire thread nor do I care. I'm more specifically curious what the religious folks think about this policy. That's been my only question this entire time.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Platypus
PrinceofWands, your Gandhi quote is perfect for this thread and people like Fettsbabe who consistantly dodged my question with enough logical fallacies to teach a 101 course.

That is one thing that I still don't understand about the BSA's stance. I'm not debating their right to have said stance, it just doesn't make sense to me and no one can give me a clear answer. You religious lot out there need to help me understand what I view as ridiculous hypocrisy.</end quote></div>

I'm not religious, thank you. I'm defending the right of a private organization to determine its own membership criteria. I don't care about any of the other arguments.
There's something very odd about people who don't understand the fact that your Constitutional rights defend you from the government, not the government from the people, or the people from the people. What's next? Are you going to claim it's a violation of your freedom of religion rights when one of the JW's knock on your door? Or are you exercising the freedom to choose your own path in life while denying others their right to do the same?

you fail to understand that your criticizing a person for criticizing an organization. The organization can determine its own mermbership criteria and the person has freedom of speech as well. Your telling the person that they are not respecting other people's rights by using their constitutional right. Nobody here is a senator or representative. They make no laws. The main thing people are using on this forum is freedom of speech. that's it. You criticize someone for speakig and you are criticizing a part of the constitution itself. t amazes how you can bathe in hypocrisy and yet not notice the stench.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.
</end quote></div>
:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.</end quote></div>
The boy scouts aren't free to discriminate me without repurcussions. If a celebrity makes a comment and gets criticized I'd bet they want the freedom to say what they want without the public puttig up barriers to them.

If a group decides to discriminate they are immune because they should be free? I'm not for some goverment mandated disbandment. I have criticized them on the basis of their beliefs. It is my right to do so as it is their right to discriminate. It is both our freedoms. And it is yours to criticize me, etc... But of course it's hypocrisy.

oh and nice try being fake. If you had felt that was a concession you wouldn't even feel the need to try to rebut. IT was obviously a parody of your post and you recognized that.

Ah... I get it. Sorry, I thought you were discussing something more here than just your petty selfish whining. Really, I don't give a fsck about that. Your opinions are not arguments of fact, except maybe in your own mind. Criticize all you want, that's just noise amidst the noise. I wouldn't dream of stopping that.
Oh, and I never used an invalid slippery slope. Once you get that, you might figure out why your "parody" fell flat.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Vic
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Stop snorting shit. my argument was right (yours was wrong). And your post didn't help your argument.
</end quote></div>
:laugh:


That's better than any concession. Thanks.

Now... the Boy Scouts want the freedom to choose their own path without you putting up barriers to them. And that's not a slippery slope any more than my previous argument was. Kindly come back when you're old enough to sit at the big people table.</end quote></div>
The boy scouts aren't free to discriminate me without repurcussions. If a celebrity makes a comment and gets criticized I'd bet they want the freedom to say what they want without the public puttig up barriers to them.

If a group decides to discriminate they are immune because they should be free? I'm not for some goverment mandated disbandment. I have criticized them on the basis of their beliefs. It is my right to do so as it is their right to discriminate. It is both our freedoms. And it is yours to criticize me, etc... But of course it's hypocrisy.

oh and nice try being fake. If you had felt that was a concession you wouldn't even feel the need to try to rebut. IT was obviously a parody of your post and you recognized that.</end quote></div>

you are right.

they are not without repurucssions. one is the fact that they do not get goverment funding. or and negitive publicty.

but they do have a right as a private orginization ot accept who they want.

why is it that people simply aren't getting the points in this thread.

#1 private organizations have the right to discriminate it's membership.
#2 Discriminatory organizations should not receive goverment money.

does anybody even disagree about the top 2? Not from what I've seen.

I am only criticizing them for the belief itself. Why are people that dense! I am not targeting you specifically waggy.