[Aramike]

I am on the side of freedom. Everyone is free to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe anyone else's freedom to do the same. On the other hand, you are campaigning for the freedom to force others to be subject to your desire to inflict your religion on everyone else at the taxpayers' expense. You haven't addressed that yet, and you continue to avoid it.

Here we go again. As is typical, if you either don't understand a point or disagree with it, you claim that it hasn't been addressed.

I have several times stated that I don't believe that a prayer is "inflicting" something on anyone. Now, if you'd like to continue to ignore that, be my guest, but don't be suprised at how circular and pointless of a discussion this will remain.

Would you like me to point out where I've stated this or can you actually find it on your own?

First, I'm not interested in showing that your positions may contradict each other. I'm not interested in playing intellectual internet games and calling them "honest".

Then why did you bring the other discussion up? Or are you simply not interested now because the logic has backfired?

Second, you haven't addressed my other accusation, which was that you believe in freedom for yourself, which is fine, but you deny the same to others and then accuse them of wanting to take away yours by simply asking for the same consideration.

I have repeatedly addressed this.

For the last time: WHAT FREEDOM IS BEING INFRINGED UPON BY A PRAYER?

No where in the Constitution does it say that someone has the right to begin their participation at an event that involves prayer at the time THEY WANT TO begin said participation. And no one has the "right" to "not hear" what they don't want to hear.

So you can keep conjuring up fake freedoms then complaining that they are being infringed upon, or you can concern yourself with the freedoms that are explicitly detailed in the Constitution.

Personally I've chosen the latter.

Again, I'm not denying anybody's right to pray in public (though Jesus himself calls them hypocrites). I'm disagreeing that they have a right to force their particular brand of worship on anyone else at a function that is clearly not religious. No dishonesty there at all.

There's that word again. "Force". Hmmm - where's the "forcing"? Or did you not read that part of my argument either?

Anyway I'm done here. As usual you are the authority on all things you debate in all the while, as usual, you refuse to even consider or discuss the other side.

Ironic considering you fancy yourself the board's policeman and love to brag about how you never consider yourself to "know" anything.