Intelligent Design ruling

[Buckeyefan 1]

Dalai Lama Meets With Muslims

Two thumbs up for the Dalai!

By JUSTIN M. NORTON, Associated Press Writer Sun Apr 16, 8:47 AM ET

SAN FRANCISCO - The Dalai Lama urged religious leaders Saturday to reach out to Muslims, saying Islam is a compassionate faith that has been unfairly maligned because of a few extremists.

"Nowadays to some people the Muslim tradition appears more militant," the 70-year-old exiled monk said at a weekend conference, which aimed to bring Muslims and Buddhists together.

"I feel that's totally wrong. Muslims, like any other traditions — same message, same practice. That is a practice of compassion," he said.

Event organizers say the Dalai Lama interrupted his schedule to fly to San Francisco and meet Islamic scholars and leaders from other faiths to discuss reducing violence and extremism.

Security was tight at the invitation-only event, which drew about 500 religious leaders and scholars. The conference included speakers and presenters from numerous faiths and roughly 30 countries.

The Dalai Lama told the audience that many people see and hear news of suicide bombings in predominantly Muslim countries but don't hear about how Muslims often work with the poor.

He said all human beings are prone to violence if they lose control of their emotions and not to judge an entire faith based on a few people. "A few mischievous people are always there," he said.

The Dalai Lama, who was awarded the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize, fled Tibet in 1959 following an aborted uprising against Chinese rule in the territory and now keeps an office in exile in the Himalayan town of Dharmsala, India.

The Dalai Lama also told conference attendees that religious traditions must work harder to live together in peace, citing religious violence in Northern Ireland, Pakistan and
Iraq.

Hamza Yusuf, founder of the Zaytuna Institute, a Hayward-based center for Islamic study, said the conference could help build relationships between Buddhists and Muslims and promote a greater understanding of Islam. He noted that Muslims and Buddhists lived together peacefully for hundreds of years in Tibet.

Yusuf said the Dalai Lama's participation in the event could warm Americans to Islam, since many Americans have mixed feelings about the faith but are receptive to Buddhism.

"He wanted to meet us in solidarity as a community because he felt like people were attacking Islam," Yusuf said.

Seyed Ali Ghazvini of the Islamic Cultural Center of Fresno said he hoped the conference would encourage Muslims to be more visible and active in the United States.

"This is a matter of necessity," said Ghazvini, who gave the Dalai Lama a set of Islamic prayer beads. "It's not an option to sit alone in our own community and our own mosques."

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Pentacostals

Did anyone have any idea how large this group was, and that it's only a 100 years old?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060424/ts_csm/cpent

 

[cyberbri]

Very enlightening article:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91

The missing link
Scientist discovers that evolution is missing from Arkansas classrooms.

Jason R. Wiles
Updated: 3/23/2006

n the fall of 2004, I received an e-mail from an old friend back in Arkansas, where I was raised. She was concerned about a problem her father was having at work. “Bob” is a geologist and a teacher at a science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts. My friend did not know the details of Bob’s problem, only that it had to do with geology education. This was enough to arouse my interest, so I invited Bob to tell me about what was going on.

He responded with an e-mail. Teachers at his facility are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution)
with the kids. They are permitted to use the word “adaptation” but only to refer to a current characteristic of an organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term “natural selection.” Bob feared that not being able to use evolutionary terms and ideas to answer his students’ questions would lead to reinforcement of their misconceptions.

But Bob’s personal issue was more specific, and the prohibition more insidious. In his words, “I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old.”

As a person with a geology background, Bob found this restriction hard to justify, especially since the new Arkansas educational benchmarks for 5th grade include introduction of the concept of the 4.5-billion-year age of the earth. Bob’s facility is supposed to be meeting or exceeding those benchmarks.

Read the whole article.

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91

 

[cyberbri]

This isn't on ID, although reading some of the posts, much of the discussion seems to be OT now...

A few days back I saw this story on Jerry Falwell losing a court battle to shut www.fallwell.com down. I checked this site out - it's about the anti-gay movement not really being backed by the Bible, basically.

One of the pages has "Bible verses not taken literally" by people using the Bible as justification to be anti-gay.

This page in particular talks about the famous Leviticus quotes used as justification:

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." (Leviticus 18:22)

and . . .

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

And yet people ignore the other "rules" in Leviticus.
This one is actually pretty funny when you think about it:

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

So I guess Japanese people shouldn't be allowed to marry, because eating squid and octopus is an abomination and unnatural. Or anyone who has been to Red Lobster or has had shrimp cocktail or crab cakes.

There are other excerpts about slaves, women not talking in church, not lying with a woman during her "bleeding," and more on this website.



Even Sodom and Gomorrah has been warped so that "Sodom" means something very different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah

Ezekiel 16:49-50: Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

This idea is paralleled in the Gospels when Jesus compares an inhospitable reception to Sodom:

Matthew 10:14-15: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Of course this is what Christians like to use, conveniently disregarding the other "sins" of Sodom (homosexuality, rape, etc.):
Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

That website even has the Islamic view of Lot, Sodom, etc.


similarities between the Bible and the Qur'an:

The Qur'an (Koran) contains many references to people and events that are mentioned in the Bible; especially the stories of the prophets of Islam, among whom are included Moses, David and Jesus.

Muslims believe that Moses was given the Tawrat (Hebrew Torah, or 'the Law'); that David was given the Zabur (or psalms) and that Jesus was given the Injil (Greek evangel, or Gospel) from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God (Allah in Arabic). Traditionally, Muslims have believed that these teachings were eventually lost or heavily distorted to produce what is now the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. Hence Muslims traditionally denied the accuracy of the Bible. They generally believe that the Qur'an is the only remaining uncorrupted revelation.

The stories of the Biblical figures mentioned in the Qur'an often contain few details and tend to concentrate more on the moral or spiritual significance of the story.[/quote]

It seems that all the major religions are basically based on different versions of ancient texts, all believing in 1 true god. It's just the details that are different. Just look at all the different churches (even within the same denomination) with different interpretations of the Bible.

 

[cyberbri]

On Meet the Press on Easter, Tim Russert had a bunch of theologians and religious figures representing different viewpoints.

There was one Catholic woman who made a really good point:
To Catholics, divorce is wrong and against Catholic tenets. But do Catholics rise up and protest and try to ban divorce in America? No. They try to follow that rule in their personal lives, but don't see the need to legislate laws restricting the rights of all people based on their personal religious beliefs. What a novel idea...

 

[Pyrrho]

On Meet the Press on Easter, Tim Russert had a bunch of theologians and religious figures representing different viewpoints.

There was one Catholic woman who made a really good point:
To Catholics, divorce is wrong and against Catholic tenets. But do Catholics rise up and protest and try to ban divorce in America? No. They try to follow that rule in their personal lives, but don't see the need to legislate laws restricting the rights of all people based on their personal religious beliefs. What a novel idea...

It is certainly a novel idea to the Catholic Church. They were deeply involved in the censorship of the movie industry (the Hays Code, or, more formally, the Production Code) that started in the 1930's and lasted for decades. We could go further back and talk about the Inquisition if you wanted (which, by the way, ended NOT because the Catholic Church decided it was a bad idea, but because the secular authorities no longer permitted it, which explains why it lasted longer in some countries than others). If they had the power to do so, they would be very happy to control such things. They have done so in other countries (such as Italy), but they lack the power to enforce such things in the U.S.--for the moment.

 

[Johnd]

...the Catholic Church...

So let's bring 'em out back and beat the snot out of them. And the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants, and while we're at it, the Baptists too!

Intolerance is one of Satan's (or just the "dark side" for the atheists...I like to keep it universal) favorite vices. Why not focus on some of the positive. There's nary a man or a group that I couldn't drudge up some dirt on. Just some food for thought.

 

[Johnd]

...try to follow that rule in their personal lives...

Sage advice. Particularly if one "tries" in earnest.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Anyone who has done research about the bible knows of the extreme editing done in 300-400 AD. There were numerous gospels left out of the final printing. It was politically correct at the time not to discuss everything and anything that may have happened in the days of Jesus. Moral editing made the current new testament politically correct - at least in their eyes.

The religions that follow the bible word for word - fundamentalists, can only be traced back to the 1500's when Martin Luther started a new christianity. He was fed up with the Catholic church, and took a different route. A majority followed.

It's been the same old song, and will remain the same old song long after we're gone. What was the last guys name to attempt something similar - L Ron Hubbard?

Ignorance is bliss. The less research you do on this topic, the better off you are. It's all about politics, money, and control. Assuming Jesus/Allah/Yahweh... and a supreme God exist, you still have corrupt government and religious officials that have tainted any teachings that could have been beneficial today. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many denominations. Everyone isn't right. Is any ONE right?

 

[Pyrrho]

So let's bring 'em out back and beat the snot out of them. And the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants, and while we're at it, the Baptists too!

Intolerance is one of Satan's (or just the "dark side" for the atheists...I like to keep it universal) favorite vices. Why not focus on some of the positive. There's nary a man or a group that I couldn't drudge up some dirt on. Just some food for thought.

If you got that from reading my post, you need to reread it a few more times. And if that does not work, you may wish to try looking up all of the words in a dictionary, and take some classes on the English language.

It is also bad advice to ignore the bad things that people have done in the past. They might be inclined to do it again, particularly in cases where there have been no relevant doctrinal alterations in the organization involved.

Edited to add:

'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'
Life of Reason, Reason in Common Sense, Scribner's, 1905, page 284
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=495329

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Ron Howard says "no" to disclaimer

Good for him. People can figure it out for themselves. Heck, many here would say the same about the Bible - a work of fiction. (I won't name any names, Mtry )

Imagine a group starting a counter boycott because of this! Now, that would take the cake.


By Gina Serpe 1 hour, 31 minutes ago
E!online - care of Yahoo news.

Tarnation! Opie's done got himself into another scrape.

The Da Vinci Code director Ron Howard has rejected demands by Opus Dei to attach a disclaimer to his would-be blockbuster labeling the film as a work of fiction, spurring a rebuke from the religious sect.

"It's not theology. It's not history. To start off with a disclaimer...Spy thrillers don't start off with disclaimers," Howard told the Los Angeles Times in Sunday's edition.

The latest in a long line of pre-release controversies, concerns the ever contested bloodline theory, centering on the notion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that their children gave rise to a line of French royalty.

The film features several scenes based on both traditional biblical passages and alternate theories put forth by Dan Brown's mega-selling book.

And the book is none too kind to Opus Dei, an ultra-conservative sect of the Roman Catholic Church, which, in its best light, comes off as a group of murderous, deceitful, power-hungry monks in the novel. Last month, the sect sent a letter to filmmakers and distributor Sony Pictures demanding a disclaimer be attached to the film declaring "any similarity with reality is purely coincidental." Howard has opted to leave off the cinematic footnote, claiming that since the book was a work of fiction, it goes without saying that the film is, too.

"It's very controversial," Howard said. "What Dan Brown did with the novel, we didn't back away from in making the movie. I think what a lot of people have discovered--a lot of theologians--is this is a work of fiction that presents a set of characters that are affected by these conspiracy theories and ideas. Those characters in this work of fiction act and react on that premise."

That echoed an earlier statement from Sony, which called The Da Vinci Code "a work of fiction, and at its heart, it's a thriller, not a religious tract."

On Monday, Opus Dei released a statement expressing disappointment at Howard's decision.

"A disclaimer could have been a way for Sony to show that the company wants to be fair and respectful in its treatment of Christians and the Catholic Church," said Brian Finnerty, Opus Dei's U.S. spokesman.

The sect isn't the only division of the Church that has taken major issue with both the film and book.

The Vatican launched its own offensive against the flick last month, upgrading its disapproval of the book's supposedly anti-Christian theories into a call for a full-blown boycott.

Monsignor Angelo Amato, the number-two official in the Vatican's powerful doctrinal office, called for the ban on the basis that the blockbuster novel was "stridently anti-Christian...full of calumnies, offences and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospels and the Church."

Not all Church officials share the same grievances.

Members of both Opus Dei and the Catholic Church in England and Wales announced plans to capitalize on the interest created by the book and will use the controversy surrounding the film as "teaching opportunities" instead of heresies.

While the Archbishop of Westminster's director of public affairs, Austen Ivereigh, has made a public statement regarding the Church's official stance, the bishops themselves have remained aloof on the topic, instead taking the opportunity to publicly discuss the religion's different sects and beliefs without attempting to spark an uprising.

The Da Vinci Code premieres at the
Cannes Film Festival May 17 and opens wide May 19.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/eo/20060509/en_movies_eo/18983

 

[The Numenorian]

Wow, the thread to end all threads. woo!

To me, the most candid evidence for the existence of God is within no book, within no word, and within no doctrine. My own personal experiences have led me to conclude that God is undeniable and irrefutable, because of the ways that God himself has touched me to my core. God's elements are a paradox, and a perfect balance, such as the ying-yang.

God's greatest gift is inside of man- that gift is conscience in body through spirit, not just conscience in spirit.

God's greatest gifts are outside of man- the heavens, the earth, and all that dwell in them.

One of the universe's smallest forces, man, contains what it takes the entire universe to express: love, order, growth, and eternity.

Consider this: energy cannot be destroyed and is everlasting. Many people theorize that the universe will eventually reverse its growth which has been happening since the Big Bang. The theory states that the universe will once again become a tiny pinprick of concentrated matter, and the process will repeat itself. Consider this in nature. Do not all things replenish themselves and recycle themselves? The earth- its crust eventually is covered by magma flow and slowly moves towards the center, where it is melted and reorganized. Eventually, it comes back onto the surface, and made into fresh earth. In a larger perspective, stars eventally run out of fuel and collapse on themselves, often resulting in a black hole. Matter in the local area enters the black hole, and the energy is recycled in one way or another. Even when matter is forced through what some call the "time space continuum" the energy cannot be destroyed (albeit we don't know what happens, but have we seen everything? No- that is why we play a part in life and return to the whole where there is completion). In this same way, our spirit cannot be destroyed. After physical death, our portion of the universal conscience (God's mind?) returns to the whole (God?). In the same way, the universe may very well physically return "to itself" in the reversal of the Big Bang. Nature itself may very well, once all is done, reveal the nature of God. What we claim to me least manifest (God) may actually be most manifest in the wide, wide universe. Imagine the amazement of a person on the day of judgement, when he realizes that the entire universe, all who-knows-how-many trillions of light years of it, was a testament to the spirit inside of his tiny flesh, of which he was an integral and purposeful part.

Granted, my appeals won't please everyone. But they please me...they please my mind and spirit in truth. God is self-evident, and we have become too blind to see the obvious. And get this- we were made in His image (spirit, light, grace, mercy, love, truth, etc.) and are capable of perfection, just as He is perfect!

I suggest this site, a location of near-death experiences of many non-believers and believers.
http://www.near-death.com/origen.html

In light of all this, I hope you will have considered that all this is theoretical. Damn right it is, and so are all the other theories of science and religion. Something CANNOT be proved if it is not observable, even if a small part of it is observable. EVERY section of something must be analyzed for the sake of continuity and thoroughness. The ages of earth are unviewable because they're long gone...essentially, except for a limited fossil record, those ages are invisible. Likewise, God is invisible, except for a tiny sliver of information in texts (Bible, Quran, Torah, scrolls, etc.). Perhaps science and religion are not so far estranged as we think.

Thus, is not faith applicable to simpler things, such as physics (my chair will hold me...) and to higher things, like science and spirituality? This is simply my experience, and my experience alone. We are all unique, and God reveals himself in a different way to each man. Just don't say no to the possibility of the existence of something totally unlike your beliefs. But once you have felt God, known him, and experienced His nature, you will shudder at the thought that He does not exist...therein is darkness and no purpose, and therein you will see how deprived (not depraved...but that also) you once were without the invisible almighty, Lord of Heaven and Earth.

This is not a very well written, documented, or properly cited article. This is simply my view, not my analysis. Please don't take it too objectively or personally.

 

[Daz3d&Confus3d]

Numenorian you know what's funny about your post?

Your so serious and then you end it with a quote from "spaceballs" in your sig....lol

 

[The Numenorian]

HAHA I was just noticing that...good eye...man I love that movie.

combing the desert...yogurt...my schwartz is bigger than yours...et al.

me are happy panda.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Da Vinci Code movie a target for US evangelicals

If Ron Howard hits a home run with the production, it could surpass Titanic. It's hard to believe all the commotion the film is getting. I don't remember a fraction of this when the book first came out. I guess when the Bible is the only book you read, you probably don't get out much.


By Michael Conlon - Reuters; 15 minutes ago via Yahoo news 5-14-06

CHICAGO (Reuters) - America's evangelical Christians who see "The Da Vinci Code" as Bible bashing at its worst are taking a cue from Hollywood to attack the story as well as capitalize on the hit novel's impending movie version.


Largely forgoing boycotts or protests, leaders of Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible are turning out professional videos with titles such as "The Da Vinci Delusion" and "The Da Vinci Deception Experience."

They are designed to show the perils of blurring fact and fiction in Dan Brown's bestseller and take advantage of the reawakening of interest in the Bible it and the upcoming movie have caused among faith seekers.

"A boycott at this point would not do any good. When you have a tsunami coming it doesn't help to build a wall," said Dr. Erwin Lutzer, pastor of Moody Bible Church in Chicago.

"I have never in my 30 years of ministry had a time when so many people are interested ... We as evangelicals welcome the debate," added Lutzer, who wrote "The Da Vinci Deception" which has been turned into a video teaching kit on the subject.

He and other experts will appear in a closed-circuit broadcast this month that will be aired to around 700 churches, to inform congregations about the book's faults and take advantage of the debate to promote church attendance.

"This is the engagement option," says Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary.

It provides an opportunity for people "to become familiar with the content of the book and the claims it's making and then being prepared to respond, by pointing out the numerous factual errors it contains," he added.

This has become the favored approach among evangelicals, instead of boycotting the movie, said Bock, author of "Breaking the Da Vinci Code: Answers to the Questions Everyone is Asking."

By contrast cardinals at the
Vatican, who consider the book blasphemous, have called for a boycott and unspecified legal action to be taken against the novel and film.

DA VINCI "DECEPTION"

Across the United States on Saturday and Sunday, television viewers were to be offered "The Da Vinci Deception," an hour-long program produced by Dr. D. James Kennedy and his Florida-based Coral Ridge Ministries.

The video, also being offered for sale, exposes "how a best-selling book threatens to undermine the faith of millions," its promotional trailer states.

Donald Wildmon, founder of the Mississippi-based American Family Association which has organized boycotts against TV shows and companies it considers morally offensive, says the video "should be viewed by every Christian and shown in every church."

The book, and the film opening May 19, contain the idea that Jesus sired a child by Mary Magdalene, leading to a clandestine society that has for centuries protected the identity of their descendants from agents of the Catholic Church.

Dr. Robert Hodgson, dean of the American Bible Society's Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship, says many Christians see the debate as a great time to promote the Bible.

But there are others who "see a more sinister hand at work in the movie and want to correct the record and get the voice of orthodox Christianity out there."

The New York-based society produced a show called "Debunking the Da Vinci Code" which aired earlier this year on about 300 cable TV channels.

"Not only do we have the voice of Dan Brown telling us his reconstruction, (but) we have an increasing Bible illiteracy here in North America," Hodgson said.

Adds Lutzer of Chicago's Moody Church: "There is a huge battle going on today on who has the best telling of the Christian story.

"People want to believe the Da Vinci Code so badly because they want a Christ who is manageable, a Jesus that is not going to challenge you or threaten your lifestyle."

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Spirituality May Help Lower Blood Pressure

See Mtry, there are other benefits. Your high spirits will take you further than you think - and I'm not talking about that martini you had last night.


THURSDAY, May 18 (HealthDay News) -- "Religion and spirituality may have a positive effect on blood pressure, according to a study of more than 5,300 black Americans.

Researchers found that people in the Jackson (Miss.) Heart Study who were involved with or participated in religious activities had significantly lower blood pressure than people who did not, even though the people involved in religious activities were more likely to have high blood pressure, higher body mass index (BMI) scores, and lower levels of adherence to medications.

The findings were presented Thursday at the American Society of Hypertension's annual meeting, in New York City.

"Cardiovascular health disparities among African-Americans are widely recognized, and hypertension is the most prominent risk factor in the development of cardiovascular disease in African-Americans," study author Sharon Wyatt, of the University of Mississippi Medical Center in Jackson, said in a prepared statement.

"Our findings show that the integration of religion and spirituality -- attending church and praying -- may buffer individuals exposed to stress and delay the deleterious effects of hypertension. These practices can be useful for individuals to incorporate into their daily lives," Wyatt said.

Some previous research has suggested that religion and spirituality may have a protective effect on health outcomes."

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Madonna Blasted for Concert Crucifixion

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_en_mu/people_madonna;_ylt=At5XtBHu81F.UOmcZyHegJDLOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-
Madonna Blasted for Concert Crucifixion - Yahoo! News

I think she was brought up Catholic. Just another stunt to get re-recognized.

 

[Pyrrho]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060523/ap_en_mu/people_madonna;_ylt=At5XtBHu81F.UOmcZyHegJDLOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-
Madonna Blasted for Concert Crucifixion - Yahoo! News

I think she was brought up Catholic. Just another stunt to get re-recognized.

She has done a lot with Catholic imagery over the years. And people get all worked up over it pretty much every time she does. I am not a fan of hers, and have never purchased any of her music, and even I know this. Have you been hiding in a cave for the past 25 years? Anyway, every "artist" who seeks recognition does things to draw attention to themselves. Whether it is called a "stunt" or not depends on one's attitude toward the person and one's attitude toward the particular activity, not on any objective quality about what they are doing. Frankly, getting religious nutjobs who don't believe in free speech upset is the thing I like about her most. She has every right to do a "stunt", as you call it. If anyone doesn't like what she does, they are free to not buy any of her music, movies, or attend any of her concerts. As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to stop her from exercising her rights to free speech can go to hell.

 

[Johnd]

Have you been hiding in a cave for the past 25 years?

Whether it is called a "stunt" or not depends on one's attitude toward the person and one's attitude toward the particular activity, not on any objective quality about what they are doing. Frankly, getting religious nutjobs who don't believe in free speech upset is the thing I like about her most. She has every right to do a "stunt", as you call it.

"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.

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.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

As far as I am concerned, anyone who wants to stop her from exercising her rights to free speech can go to hell.

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.