Intelligent Design ruling

[majorloser]

Congratulations Buckeyefan 1 for creating the thread that just won't quit!

I've tried to ignore it for a while, but just like herpes it just keeps showing up

 

[Pyrrho]

"Free speech?" I think it rather expensive. The cost is those millions of "nutjobs" she just offended again so that she can be rediscovered in the entertainment world and make more millions of dollars. Perhaps that's "the deal": a dollar per every soul.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm all for free speech. But when it is done for purely economic reasons at other people's expense it doesn't seem so altruistic or even worthy of being heard...at least not by my ears.

Free speech isn't necessarily about altruism at all. And it isn't necessarily about being worth being heard. It is about the right to say what you want to say. Whether what one says is selfish or altruistic, or worth hearing or not, is beside the point.

Your claim, "I'm all for free speech", in a post in which you are saying people shouldn't have free speech, is really funny.

You mention freedom of speech. You understand that there are limits to that speech and costs associated with it. What about freedom of religion? And the right to live and express religion without being ridiculed? And worse yet, ridiculed by entertainers for profit motives.

So, you wish to deny Madonna her right to the freedom of her expression of her ideas about religion? Give me a break. You want people who agree with you to be able to freely express their views on religion, but not those who disagree with you. So don't pretend that you are in favor of freedom of religion when you want to suppress the ideas of others on religion.

Also, freedom of religion is NOT the right to have others not ridicule you. It is the right to have and practice whatever religion one wants. It does not mean that one has the right to suppress other's opinions on what one is believing. It is the government letting you practice your religion, not the government forcing other people to keep quiet about it.

 

[Pyrrho]

The first thing that popped into my head was you backing the KKK and Skinhead free speech rights. I'll be glad to go to hell to shut up those two groups.

I guess you felt justified when Janet Jackson showed her free speech during the stunt she pulled at the Super Bowl halftime show. As you said, people are free not to watch the Super Bowl, or attend. Makes perfect sense to me.

You call Madonna's stunt free speech. I call it tasteless. Madonna has been in a cave for many years - haven't you noticed? This is her way of trying to make it out of her hole. It's a shame she has to degrade herself to these lows. She would do just fine putting on a concert, relying on her singing rather than crucifying herself on a mirrored cross to get attention.

There is no contradiction between doing something tasteless and exercising one's right to free speech. I personally find it tasteless that an organization that has tortured and killed thousands of people (because of their religious beliefs) calls someone a "bigot" for using religious imagery in her act. They are as supremely hypocritical as can be.

(Before anyone mentions the fact that they no longer torture and kill as they did for hundreds of years, the ONLY reason they stopped was because the secular authorities no longer let them, which explains why it lasted longer in some countries than others. And there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they would not do precisely the same things again, if only they had the opportunity. After all, there are still "heresies" to stomp out, and there has been no fundamental change in the organization. They are still the same intolerant, bigoted organization, that wishes to stamp out anything that disagrees with them.)

 

[Johnd]

Your claim, "I'm all for free speech", in a post in which you are saying people shouldn't have free speech, is really funny.

No, that's not what I said. Before critiquing a person's post, you ought to read it carefully, and then read it again.

I said what Madonna has to say is not worth listening to for me ("at least not by my ears" is a direct quote"). Nowhere did I say Madonna shouldn't be allowed to say that. I simply said what she has to say may not be worth listening to. Your misquote is the common drivel I ordinarily avoid. I have corrected your misquote in the hopes you avoid it in the future (as I believe you took buckeyefan's point out of context as well).

And finally, free speech does not mean one can say whatever they want in any forum. I don't know where you obtained your constitutional education, but our bill of rights is not without limitations. Shouting "fire" as jest in a crowded theater is criminal, and Janet Jackson showing her nipple during Superbowl halftime is intolerable (I don't think they'll be inviting her back anytime soon, and I applaud their decision....and I'm not a prude. I do have a sense of appropriateness though). imho

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

There is no contradiction between doing something tasteless and exercising one's right to free speech. I personally find it tasteless that an organization that has tortured and killed thousands of people (because of their religious beliefs) calls someone a "bigot" for using religious imagery in her act. They are as supremely hypocritical as can be.

(Before anyone mentions the fact that they no longer torture and kill as they did for hundreds of years, the ONLY reason they stopped was because the secular authorities no longer let them, which explains why it lasted longer in some countries than others. And there is absolutely no reason to suppose that they would not do precisely the same things again, if only they had the opportunity. After all, there are still "heresies" to stomp out, and there has been no fundamental change in the organization. They are still the same intolerant, bigoted organization, that wishes to stamp out anything that disagrees with them.)

After a quick read, I thought you were talking about the KKK and Skinheads (it does make perfect sense). Rereading your quote, I see you are talking about the Vatican.

Tell us - what is your stance on freedom of speech for the KKK and Skinhead members? Tasteless or not, do you ever draw a line? How do you feel about the FCC? We're they out of line with Howard Stern?

 

[Pyrrho]

No, that's not what I said. Before critiquing a person's post, you ought to read it carefully, and then read it again.

I said what Madonna has to say is not worth listening to for me ("at least not by my ears" is a direct quote"). Nowhere did I say Madonna shouldn't be allowed to say that. I simply said what she has to say may not be worth listening to. Your misquote is the common drivel I ordinarily avoid. I have corrected your misquote in the hopes you avoid it in the future (as I believe you took buckeyefan's point out of context as well).

And finally, free speech does not mean one can say whatever they want in any forum. I don't know where you obtained your constitutional education, but our bill of rights is not without limitations. Shouting "fire" as jest in a crowded theater is criminal, and Janet Jackson showing her nipple during Superbowl halftime is intolerable (I don't think they'll be inviting her back anytime soon, and I applaud their decision....and I'm not a prude. I do have a sense of appropriateness though). imho

Interesting. I NEVER said that freedom of speech had NO limitations. I also made no comment about Janet Jackson.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Tell us - what is your stance on freedom of speech for the KKK and Skinhead members?

They have as much right to their hate-speech as the Catholic coalition has to protesting abortion clinics. Just because we do not agree with someone does not revke their freedom of speech/assembly.

Tasteless or not, do you ever draw a line?

Any group that promotes/endorses/incites violence or murder is illegal and socially "wrong".

How do you feel about the FCC? We're they out of line with Howard Stern?

Since the membership of the FCC is not elected by the people, I question how they got their legal power in the first place. I don't listen to Stern, so I'm not aware of the details of hist case, from what I understand he 'broadcasts" on satellite radio, and isn't "governed" by the FCC anyway.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Rock&Roll Ninja: They have as much right to their hate-speech as the Catholic coalition has to protesting abortion clinics. Just because we do not agree with someone does not revke their freedom of speech/assembly.

Well... I see your point. The right to life in itself isn't harming anyone, but burning down abortion clinics is definitely out of line. I have no problem with right to life or pro abortion picketers outside clinics. I do have issues with the KKK marching down my street. In one case, the group hates the legalities of the law. In another case, the group hates a different race/religion. Not apples to apples.

Any group that promotes/endorses/incites violence or murder is illegal and socially "wrong".

No argument there. If the KKK can promote its ideals with freedom of speech, then at what point is it illegal?

Since the membership of the FCC is not elected by the people, I question how they got their legal power in the first place. I don't listen to Stern, so I'm not aware of the details of hist case, from what I understand he 'broadcasts" on satellite radio, and isn't "governed" by the FCC anyway.

He basically lost his FM radio show because of fines from the FCC, and forced into satellite radio. The FCC is now trying to get its claws in satellite radio.

 

[Johnd]

Free speech isn't necessarily about altruism at all. And it isn't necessarily about being worth being heard. It is about the right to say what you want to say. Whether what one says is selfish or altruistic, or worth hearing or not, is beside the point.
Also, freedom of religion is NOT the right to have others not ridicule you. It is the right to have and practice whatever religion one wants. It does not mean that one has the right to suppress other's opinions on what one is believing. It is the government letting you practice your religion, not the government forcing other people to keep quiet about it.

President bush has signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, which prohibits "free speech" (protests) of military funerals and protests within 500 feet of those national cemetaries where the military funerals are held.

http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/WichitaEagle/2006/05/25/1594773?ba=a&bi=2&bp=1

Clearly, this is not the type of clear speech protected by our Bill of Rights. There is some talk that the ACLU will challenge the bill in Court as a violation of our protected rights. I say poppycock. What do you think?

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Clearly, this is not the type of clear speech protected by our Bill of Rights. There is some talk that the ACLU will challenge the bill in Court as a violation of our protected rights. I say poppycock. What do you think?

The ACLU does more for this country than anyone will admit (usually because they're defending someone with questionable tastes). And "this type of speech" isn't clearly anything, thats why its being challenged by more than one organization.

 

[Johnd]

The ACLU does more for this country than anyone will admit (usually because they're defending someone with questionable tastes). And "this type of speech" isn't clearly anything, thats why its being challenged by more than one organization.

I disagree. The ACLU does get its' fair share of accolades. I am not against the ACLU per se. I am against any litigant that wastes our Courts resources to grandstand or advance their own agenda, particularly when it is thinly veiled as "protecting our rights." I fail to see the value in protecting the right to protest dead soldiers at their burial ceremony (at a national cemetary, which is what the bill is limited to).

What is clear is that anti-war protests are political, and the proper forum is not the families' places of grieving.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

..... I am against any litigant that wastes our Courts resources to grandstand or advance their own agenda, particularly when it is thinly veiled as "protecting our rights." .....

Yeah, 'F' the NRA.

What is clear is that anti-war protests are political, and the proper forum is not the families' places of grieving.

But they aren't Anti-War protests, they are Anti-Gay/Lesbian protests held at military funerals, otherwise nobody would pay any attention to them.

PS: just kidding NRA, I still like you, even if you do manage to misallocate all our dues to your own pockets while allowing the government to take even more of our guns away every year. I mean, sure I had access to more and better self-defense firearm 100 years ago, and didn't have to have my fingerprints taken and be put on every watchdog list in 50 states.. But I know you're trying

 

[ironlung]

Happy 6/6/6

So...what are your plans for the apocalypse?


I'm going home to enjoy the beautiful day and wait for the 4 horsemen/trumpets.

 

[cyberbri]

You mean these 4 horsemen?

Better sign that "petition" before it's too late!

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Democrats take away our guns.

Republicans don't give them back.

 

[ironlung]

So...what are your plans for the apocalypse?


I'm going home to enjoy the beautiful day and wait for the 4 horsemen/trumpets.

Nevermind. It's was just the superstitious rambling of a weirdo.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Check this out

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_sc/ancient_birds

 

[cyberbri]

They must be mistaken again. The earth is only 10,000 years old...
More Bible-hating science know-it-alls.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

New US church leader says homosexuality no sin

Mon Jun 19, 3:50 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters)

Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.

Jefferts Schori, bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, was elected on Sunday as the first woman leader of the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church. the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion. She will formally take office later this year.

Interviewed on CNN, Jefferts Schori was asked if it was a sin to be homosexual.

"I don't believe so. I believe that God creates us with different gifts. Each one of us comes into this world with a different collection of things that challenge us and things that give us joy and allow us to bless the world around us," she said.

"Some people come into this world with affections ordered toward other people of the same gender and some people come into this world with affections directed at people of the other gender."

Jefferts Schori's election seemed certain to exacerbate splits within a Episcopal Church that is already deeply divided over homosexuality with several dioceses and parishes threatening to break away.

It could also widen divisions with other Anglican communities, including the Church of England, which do not allow women bishops. In the worldwide Anglican church women are bishops only in Canada, the United States and New Zealand.

Three years ago when the Church last met in convention, a majority of U.S. bishops backed the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.

The Robinson issue has been particularly criticized in Africa where the church has a growing membership and where homosexuality is often taboo.

Jefferts Schori, who was raised a Roman Catholic and graduated in marine biology with a doctorate specialization in squids and oysters, supported the consecration of Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the first openly gay bishop in more than 450 years of Anglican history.

The 52-year-old bishop is married to Richard Schori, a retired theoretical mathematician. They have one daughter, Katharine Johanna, 24, a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force and a pilot like her mother.

Asked how she reconciled her position on homosexuality with specific passages in the Bible declaring sexual relations between men an abomination, Jefferts Schori said the Bible was written in a very different historical context by people asking different questions.

"The Bible has a great deal to teach us about how to live as human beings. The Bible does not have so much to teach us about what sorts of food to eat, what sorts of clothes to wear -- there are rules in the Bible about those that we don't observe today," she said.

"The Bible tells us about how to treat other human beings, and that's certainly the great message of Jesus -- to include the unincluded."

-Amem, brother...I mean sister.

 

[Tomorrow]

I've ignored this thread for months. But it just won't die, lol. So I had to come in here and see if it was doubling as a hiding place for terrorist plan hatching or what.

But I refused to read more than just the last page...cuz...well, I don't have the extra time on my hands that some seem to have...heh heh.

So here's my take. Become a anarchistic agnostic and all things don't matter...except to irritate you. See? Now there is a good life. You either are bummed or sanguine. Easy livin' at it's finest. Choice (free will?) is unimportant.

Lastly, isn't the NRA a L O N G way from the discussion of the origins of semi-intelligent life on this planet?

J/K guys. Waiting for dinner to be ready....... One has to do something.....