Illusion #1 - "The Masonic Order, as it practices today, is no longer affiliated with the occult in any way. Not a "hunch" but fact." Please check out the information at the site I posted above, and many of the others you will find if you do a search on "Freemasonry". I do know that your statement is incorrect, based on my own experiences with the Order.
--well, a member of my coven is also now the leader of the local Masonic order and try though he might he will never turn it into a magical order. It's simply not what they do anymore. I don't know what you mean when you seem to be saying they ARE an occult order. In my experience they left that behind decades ago. Feel free to offer some explanation.


Illusion #2 - "How is it you are so wise about others' beliefs when you aren't even clear on what your own are? It's always unwise to presume, (and I can be just as foolish as anyone else in this regard!) I also demonstrated intolerance of the intolerance between religious groups in my postings.. AARRGGGHHHH! But I will say here that I don't bother with 'beliefs' much. I prefer truth.
--I wouldn't call that an illusion; merely an opinion. Most people who hold "beliefs" consider them truth. So now you're just playing semantics (what's new, though).


Illusion #3 - That's why we have a clear separation of church and state. When 'religious' and 'occult' words and symbols disappear from your Constitution, Oath of Allegience, currency etc. then perhaps we will truly know the seperation of church and state. (I'm not holding my breath).
--first off could you try to at least spell separation correctly? And I have never heard it referred to as an OATH of allegiance. We always called it the PLEDGE of allegiance in school, and most school children know it as that memorized bit of dreck you say in front of the flag every morning. Kids who object to the "under God" part are now legally allowed not to take part...chalk one up for the Constitution!
What do occult symbols on our currency have to do with separation of church and state? I do not equate the occult with the Christian church. Most people do not even equate the occult or its symbology with religion in any way. So I don't get what you're on about here.

Illusion #4 - "(calling Dubya "confused" when actually it is the poll data that is obviously flawed)." I did not call 'Dubya' confused.
--you did say "no wonder the guy can't get anything right"--so perhaps I mispoke. The parallel is still the same: calling Dubya stupid based on the fact that this polls numbers donlt add up is ignoring the fact that the POLL is flawed.

I meant that it was confusing to ME (I don't speak for 'Dubya') that 50% of Americans claim to be 'extremely uncomfortable' with their Presidential candidates expressing their religiousity, while 70% of Americans claim to want a 'strongly religious' President. I found myself wondering what IS it that Americans DO want? Do they even know? Pardon my on-line wondering!
--this isn't wondering, it's over-generalizing to an extreme. We are an enormous and diverse nation; why would anyone assume that all Americans want the same thing? This makes no sense.

Seems to me that means 20% of Americans want a 'strongly religious President' who does not make that aspect of himself public knowledge during his campaign. How then would anyone know if he/she (boy THAT would be nice!) was religious? Hmmmm?
--you have proved my point. The poll itself is nonsensical. Yet YOU were the one who offered it as proof of something or other. You need to put some thought into this stuff.



These statistics are not from a "poll" either, but from the US census of 2002. I always thought that a census is more objective and reliable than a 'poll', which is why I considered the statistics credible at all. Believe what you will - that's what your gov't is telling you - and the rest of the world - about yourselves.
--last time I checked the U.S. Census Bureau made all sorts of mistakes. They are in fact considered one of the most incompetent of our government bureaus. Why should a poll they came up with be any different?

You did not take the time to check out the link I posted perhaps?
--I don't need to. I have already stated why I think those statistics from that poll don't merit scrutiny.

Anyway I meant no offence to you or anyone else Peg.
--yes, clearly you did. But I don't care either way.

I don't know you at all, so I could only offer what I consider to be 'illusions' from your postings here. And I do apologize for assuming you were of the disgruntled ex-Christian type. It was your words "Bush is a fundamentalist Christian who..." and "I was mortally offended when he pulled the religion card today while speaking about those who died on the Columbia space shuttle. How fucking tasteless." that led me to that assumption.
--yeah, well, all I knowof you is from your postings. I find them passive-aggressive and lacking in forethought.


Oh yes, and "I am not threatened one whit by Christianity." followed a few lines down by "The effort to create a pervasive atmosphere of Christian beliefs and the so-called "family values" associated with them makes people such as myself (not to mention other non-Christians) vulnerable to persecution ..." Sounded 'disgruntled' to me. Please pardon my presumption.
--if you actually were able to comprehend what I wrote, you'd understand that there is no contradiction there and no disgruntlement. It's the atmosphere created by government, not Christians themselves, that creates the opportunities for persecution...

And again, how can there not be a 'pervasive atmosphere of Christian beliefs' in a country where 82% of the population claims those very beliefs, according to your own nation-wide (I presume) census?? Hmmm??
--as I said (here we go a THIRD time) I find that poll's figures to be faulty and inaccurate. I live here. Maybe I have a better sense of how things are.