Constance,

I couldn't give a "you-know-what" about your posting history...I've never visited it. That action is not necessary because you tread the same obnoxious path every time you descend upon this forum.

I'm addressing your overtly "personal" and insulting attacks on this forum toward certain women - usually undertaken with no provocation.

We all get heated around here at times, however your deliberate targeting whenever you visit of a small coterie of posters should not be immune from rebuttal.

You write regarding moi:

"....As that is your modus operandi where you like to bring down people who have legitimate concerns with their intellectual inquiry in lieu of searching for any truths yourself. Just shows your hypocrisy once again, as you are always attacking people and you have nothing to say. For some odd reason you have this need for attention."

If I step in and call people out for their dubious debating tactics, it's because I'm well versed in their foibles, having seen myriad examples of the same over the years.

This post from you recently concerning Suse is a case in point:

"Yes, Lego, you are very entertaining, and I agree with you wholeheartedly in all you say.

Susieoncrack - gentle? Are you kidding? Every time I try and read her posts she is full of aggro and makes me feel unwell. She is one sick puppy. Actually, I think a rottweiler is more appropriate.

What is it with these females always coming to the rescue for each other? Like a tribe.
Posted by Constance, Saturday, 20 December 2014 3:06:02 PM"

How does that assist in espousing your deliberate concerns regarding society?

It's just spitting venom for the sake of spitting venom.

Don't act like butter wouldn't melt in your mouth...this forum isn't designed to host unprovoked malicious personal attacks like the above.

And yes I have been suspended from this forum, however, if you repeat anything akin to the above example again, I'll report you.

Geez guys, I step off the forum for one fun day, and I return to find some very unseasonal Christmas vitriol!

Constance obviously had a bad Christmas Day?
If so, I am sorry, but why take out your disgusting mood on the rest of us?

I had already decided to ignore your charming misguided sheister on another thread, but now you are pestering the fine Foxy and Poirot.

What IS your problem?

What, exactly, is your position on the rise of secularism in the Western World, or have you just swung by to fling dung?

Constance - take a chill pill. Anyone who is a regular reader of this forum knows you can't stand some of the women who have different opinions than your own. The last several posts from you are way over the top and unpleasant to read.

Most of the time I would lean toward your way of thinking more than I would Poirot, Foxy or Suseonline but when you turn to just being plain nasty, nothing you have to say impresses me. Jeeze what a b*tch, came to mind reading your posts from yesterday.

You seem to especially have it in for Foxy and seem to attack her personally at every opportunity. Give it rest for awhile, we'll know what you are thinking even if we don't see posted.

Thanks for your wise words Conservative hippie.
Merry Christmas to you. :)

Dear Suse,

You've really raised a very interesting topic -
one that will keep me thinking and discussing
various aspects of it for quite some time and its
such a relevant topic at this time of the year.
My husband and I have been discussing things
like policy decisions pertaining to issues like
abortion, contraception, embryonic stem-cell
research, same-sex marriage, sex education and so
on. These are all prominent issues - and issues
that many people have different views on. They are
issues that affect people's lives and possibly may
explain in some cases the rise of secularism
in the Western World. What part does religion play in
politics is another issue that we'll be discussing
later on.

My husband pointed out the fact that -
it is widely believed that the American Constitution builds
a "wall of separation" between church and state, but
this view is largely a myth. In practice, civic affairs and
religion have long been closely intertwined in the US.
For example, the Pledge of Allegiance declares that the
country is one nation "under God." It's coins declare,
"In God we trust." Religion is an element in oaths of
office, party conventions, court-room procedures, and
nearly all formal public occasions.

Even their Scouts give a "God and country" award, a phrase
that implies, to say the least, a compatability of
interest between the two.

Many of the nation's secular symbols, also have a sacred
quality - the flag, the eagle, the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the Statue of Liberty, "America the
Beautiful," "The Star-Spangled Banner." Washington, Jefferson,
and Lincoln. Political leaders must always pay at least lip
service to religious belief.

So much more thought needs to be given to this
topic - especially as far as the role that religion
plays in our political arena compared with that of the US.
I've got to go right now - but I shall be back with more
on this topic.

Yes Foxy, it is a very complicated issue alright.
I noted with interest the current dilemma the doctors in Ireland had with their problem of turning off the life support machines on a poor brain dead woman who was 18 weeks pregnant.

The doctors were worried they would be prosecuted for 'killing' the 18 week old foetus by turning off the mother's life support system, even though the mother's body was already starting to break down and the foetus would not survive at that age anyway.

The father of the baby, and the parents of the woman were all requesting the machines be turned off.

What a ridiculous and sad state of affairs that the Catholic Church has such a dreadful stranglehold on the laws of that country, even in these modern times.