1. I made up the term "destructionist". It's a joke. Do I need proof of my own attempts at humor now? You could just not laugh.
2. Do I promote PC. No. I defend it against you. I don't like PC and have stated my reasons. But the way you use PC as a justification for removing peoples' rights "for the protection of Christians" is the pits. And the definiton of elitist is not specific to a side on an issue. The difference is clear. I believe that the average person is competent and reasonably intelligent. You believe that you are one of the few smart ones. Call me naive, but you are the elitist.
3. As far as speculation goes, you are the one throwing the stone. The burden is on you to prove that there is destructive intent to PC. You can show destructive results as can I, but no credible evidence of conspiracy or malevolence. Why do I sense that another of your stupid drawings is about to come up?
4. Didn't say I enjoy ignoring facts, just that I seek different kinds of facts. You obviously know nothing of economics. By looking up some things, you give up time to look up other things. However I am smart enough, like most people, to be skeptical of "facts" given by people with the name Sham, posting his own images. I'd trust Rocky more as a Constitutional scholar since he does indeed study it. But that's right- you don't care about the Constitution.
5. Innovation does lead forward by bringing in new ideas to compete with the old. Strictly adhering to a precreated set of rules and oppressing all deviation will lead to a slowdown- until you are overthrown. Where is your proof that your theocracy will take us forward. Even the bible doesn't show that. The bible gives free will and calls for each person to prove his or her merit.
6. Then what exactly is your angle? You seem to believe that groups disagreeing with you should be denied rights and your privelaged group should make the rules. You also claim that the founders are to be ignored when what they say contradicts your vision of theocracy.
7. How do you know that you are he "real" Christian? And can you make any claim to not being an elitist after this profession of superiority.
8. The comparison is exaggeratory. You and the Saudi monarchy are both anti-democratic and theocratic. Of course it was simplified. Your comments merit nothing better.
And how can I argue with you about Christianity when you believe yourself to be a higher authority on the subject than the majority of Christians.
You should get out more. Get a job or something.

Since we're just going back and forth, how about this? You keep posting, and after each post you can read this message:

If you don't like freedom you're in the wrong country. You're never going to rule the world, so deal with it. And get out of your parents' basement.

It will be almost like this thread is continuing on indefinitely.

which matches everything else you posted. . . . .

For freedom to be expanded it is necessary to understand the relevant history and what freedom means - I don't think you do. You're welcome to visit my blog The 'Sanitization' of Scottish History (http://follonblogs.blogspot.com/).

The "establishment of religion" clause in the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the fed. gov. can set up a church, pass laws that aid one religion over another or force people to believe one thing or another.

If they had intended otherwise, they would have spelled it out.

__________________
"I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy."
-Sen. John McCain 09/22/2008