On Oct 18, 10:22=A0am, r... at (no spam) somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
In article
00ccc0f7-3c19-4c5a-833e-70f710a6b... at (no spam) k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Jimb=
o





ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 2, 3:35=3DA0pm, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:02:34 -0400, "Dan Listermann" <d... at (no spam) listermann.=
com>=3D
=A0wrote:

"duke" <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:62t9c55t4rm1kkc1ghuhvgpmccs37vausg at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:02:39 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig... at (no spam) gmail.c=
om
wrote:

On Sep 29, 2:31 pm, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 08:27:40 -0700, gb <g... at (no spam) amusenet.com> wrote=
:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:54:17 -0500, duke <duckgumb... at (no spam) cox.net> =
wrot=3D
e:

No, you do not have freedom **from** religion.

The Constitution does not, even by implication, require anyone =
to h=3D
ew
to some superstition if they do not choose to do so.
Wrong again.

But you do not have freedom from it. Heeheeheeheeheehee.

Of course we do. =3DA0You can't have freedom of religion, without =
freedo=3D
m
from religion.

You don't have freedom from religion. =3DA0It's against the consti=
tution=3D
=A0to
prohibit
my free practice of my religious faith.

Nobody debates that you have unbridled freedom of superstition, but =
we h=3D
ave
the right to not have religion, any religion, shoved down our throat=
too=3D
=A0-
freedom from religion.

You don't have a constitutional right to freedom from religion.

Yes, we absolutely do. =A0There is no such thing as freedom of religion=
,
without freedom from religion.

=95 =A0Damn good point Jimbo.


One that earl can't address except to flap his fingers.