Hardly. Few in this world address their cause with more zealotry than our
bretheren on the left. And even the pope is no more convinced of his
infallibility than are the liberal idealogues. But that's true of many of the
groups to which humans tend to migrate. I claim membership in none, but I
sometimes feel obliged to hold up a mirror.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Juan Buhler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Now *that's* an army I would sign on for :)
>
> Sadly no, by definition, that's not it. And you know your analogy was
> worse than mine.
>
> j
>
> On 2/15/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Secular Humanism?
> > On Feb 15, 2006, at 12:41 AM, Juan Buhler wrote:
> >
> > > Neoconservatism?
> > >
> > > On 2/14/06, Mishka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> and which is that?
> > >>
> > >> best,
> > >> mishka
> > >>
> > >> On 2/14/06, E.R.N. Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Demonstrably untrue.
> > >>> I'm not saying it wasn't true several centuries ago, but there's
> > >>> currently one religion making a greater attempt to impose its
> > >>> beliefs on
> > >>> the rest of the world -- by force and fear of violence -- and that
> > >>> religion isn't (nor does it claim to be) any branch of Christianity.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Juan Buhler
> > > Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
> > > Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Juan Buhler
> Water Molotov: http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
> Slippery Slope: http://color.jbuhler.com
>
