Heroes of Might and Magic Community
please log in.! Register | Today's Posts | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile

<a href="http://www.game-advertising-online.com/" target=_blank>Game Advertising Online</a><br> banner requires iframes

Heroes 1 (Heroes 2 (Heroes 3 (Heroes 4 (Heroes 5 (Heroes 6 ()

Login:     Username:     Password:    
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas]
Thread: Free Speech [Religous people welcome to express their ideas] [ This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 ]
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted February 06, 2012 02:38 AM

Elodin:
Quote:
The first amendment says citizens have to right to peaceably assemble and indicates they can speak as a group [they can "petition" the government.] There. The people have a right to organize and speak as one to influence the government. Freedom of speech is for both individuals and for groups. The reason people join groups that have an interest in changing laws or preserving current laws is because elected officials care about getting reelected. If I can show [though having a large group] that lots of voters share my opinion politicians are more likely to take note and realize that failure to act on the concerns of the group could lead to the end of their political careers. That goes both for groups that are not primarily political in nature and for groups that focus on politics.


The Christian lynching movement is not Occupy Wall Street. The distinction is soo simple and easy to grasp, it amazes me that you still grasp at straws to prove "the people have freedom to hurt other people".
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 06, 2012 03:33 AM

Physical harm is not speech, it is in fact illegal if not carried out for self defense or by the state. Plus, hanging someone is not speech, it is physical action (Which is, funny enough, not protected by the constitution. Congress could pass a law forcing every one of its citizens to sit around on their couches and eat potato chips for the rest of their lives...). SAYING that someone should be hanged for any reason is not illegal, doing it is. It's surprising how hard it is for people to see that distinct line...
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2012 04:01 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 05:13, 06 Feb 2012.

I think that some people here miss the point entirely, and do it on purpose, I suspect.

As an individual, I have a right to be PROTECTED from hate stuff. Say, I'm gay - who's protecting me from anti-gay organizations? And if I'm becoming part of a Anti-anti-gay organization - who's protecting the rest of the people from the inevitable clashes and possible riots and whatnot?

It seems that some people have difficulties to grasp that an ORGANIZATION is just a FRONT. A front behind which individual people are hiding. A front that may be (ab)used by the "spokespersons" of said organizations, who do NOT speak for themselves, but in the name of everyone who may be a member - who and how many people that actually are, who cares, if the organization's front is good enough? And who cares whether really all people in that organization are behind the "spokespersons"?

That's much more obvious with undemocratic, sorry, non-democratic organizations like religious ones. Membership is often NOT voluntary - kids are made members and are educated in accordance with the tenets of said organization, and the self-appointed "spokesmen of higher authorities" are dictating the members of their organizations how they have to feel in certain questions and what is moral or not - even if that's contradictory to the constitution.

People have a right to express their PERSONAL opinion. But I object against the right of faceless organizations to speak in the name of an anonymous group of people behind them. They can speak for themselves, and they should be prepared to name the INDIVIDUALS for which they speak, written and signed. It is not right to paste leaflets onto trees, where the "initiative of concerned parents" or something like that would call for something. I would want to know WHO was doing it, which PERSONS, not a front with a fancy name.

As I said, with religions it's a lot more complicated, since the spokespersons claim to speak in the name of a deity.
Now, if there was a company who would demand that their female workers must cover themselves ompletely while working, you might say, heck, if you don't like it, don't work there.
But in the case of religion children are educated to follow those rules right from the start, and they CANNOT say, heck, I'll chose to be educated someplace else.
The children have a right, however, not to be educated in a discriminative way - at least you may demand that right for them.

EDIT: Then there is´the question of DUTY or RESPONIBILITY. With every RIGHT a DUTY or ONSILITY comes - isn't that what children learn or are supposed to learn? So with the right of individual free speech, isn't there a duty or responsiity connected? The duty and responsibility not to abuse the right of free speech to slander and offend others, to sow hatred and discrimination? In short the duty to make use of your rights in a responsible way?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Damacon_Ace
Damacon_Ace


Famous Hero
Back after a long absence
posted February 06, 2012 04:08 AM

I have the right to free speech even though I don't support the silly ideology of those feral anarcho-communist hippies that spew their protests and venom at anyone who disagrees with them.

So let me say this:
Communism killed 100 million people. Do you really want to give it another chance? Stalin killed 20 million and Mao killed more than 20 million. In contrast Hitler only killed 6 to 10 million.

Gore did not win the 2000 election. Bush did not steal the election. Why did Gore lose West Virginia and New Hampshire, states that he should have won by a comfortable margin? Focusing too much on Florida perhaps? Makes me want to wonder...although I personally think Nader might have spoiled the election for Gore. This is a "Reagan Democrat" speaking, by the way.

Controversy? What did Mubarak and the likes of him had in common? They kept those Taliban-style Islamic extremists in check by keeping them down. And that leads to stability. And now after the Arab Spring, we are going to see 10 more Talibans. I don't know what to make of this. We need to keep an eye on Islamic Extremism (Not that I condone Christian Fundamentalists either).

Is man-made global warming 100% real? I don't know if it really is. But those green extremists want to take us back to 100000 BC, make the population drop to under 1 billion, return us to the trees and live in caves and become raw vegans.

And the 1960s Counterculture is not the pinnacle of "goodness".
And I am now waiting for all the acid coming from you and the death threats. Go on, I dare you!
____________
Awk! Squeal! Bubble!
Squeak! Moo!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted February 06, 2012 04:47 AM

Quote:
Communism killed 100 million people. Do you really want to give it another chance? Stalin killed 20 million and Mao killed more than 20 million. In contrast Hitler only killed 6 to 10 million.
Hm... the numbers are not accurate but let's skip that, I'll just get my calculator and... Yes, that is correct... So it appears that from the standpoint of the mathematical Christianity Hitler is 10 to 16.6 times better person than the communists. However, from a FPS standpoint the communists have 10 to 16.6 times more frags than Hitler... Damn, these body count moral issues always confuse me.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Doomforge
Doomforge

Hero of Order
Mayhem Elemental
posted February 06, 2012 05:32 AM

Quote:
Sorry, but that would make no sense. Constitution refers to a document that forms the State and that limits the powers of the State. State and Constitution are two different words with entirely different meanings.


I think what JJ meant is that you trash "false gods" around like "State God" but you are fanatically loyal to US Constitution, using it as sort of a personal god in arguments: you deem actions just or unjust based on that law act, and you even use it as an argument when discussing with non-US citizens who obviously don't care for it and shouldn't, having a constitution of their own country.


____________
I regret nothing, I expect nothing.
NONE OF YOU ARE SAFE!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 06, 2012 06:14 AM
Edited by Elodin at 06:16, 06 Feb 2012.

Quote:

As an individual, I have a right to be PROTECTED from hate stuff. Say, I'm gay - who's protecting me from anti-gay organizations? And if I'm becoming part of a Anti-anti-gay organization - who's protecting the rest of the people from the inevitable clashes and possible riots and whatnot?



You have the right not to be beaten up because you are gay. You don't have the right to keep someone else from saying that gay sex is sin. Are you offended by someone's words? Get over it. You personally say quite a lot of hateful and untrue things about Christianity/religion and then you talk about "hate speech." Unbelievable.

Quote:

It seems that some people have difficulties to grasp that an ORGANIZATION is just a FRONT. A front behind which individual people are hiding.



Untrue. When I go to church I am not hiding. I am going to worship God, listen to ministers, to fellowship with others, to share my experiences, ect. Church worship services are open to the public. Try walking into a church during a service, JJ. You don't need an ID, a secret handshake or anything!!!

I am not hiding by being a member of the NRA. We work together to keep commies who hate the Constitution from stealing our Constitutional rights.

Quote:

That's much more obvious with undemocratic, sorry, non-democratic organizations like religious ones. Membership is often NOT voluntary - kids are made members and are educated in accordance with the tenets of said organization, and the self-appointed "spokesmen of higher authorities" are dictating the members of their organizations how they have to feel in certain questions and what is moral or not - even if that's contradictory to the constitution.



Being a church member is voluntary. You have to actually be born again to be an actual member of the real church. I know you think it should be illegal for theists to teach children their religion. But you think it is ok for atheists to warp the minds of their kids with the the cult of atheism. You cry because some kids are not taught what you want to indoctrinate them with. Tough. You are not their parent. Raise your own kids to be theism hating communists if that is your desire. I'll raise mine to love God and democracy. You be a member of the hate group "Freedom From Religion." I'll be a member of the love group called Christianity.

Quote:

It is not right to paste leaflets onto trees, where the "initiative of concerned parents" or something like that would call for something. I would want to know WHO was doing it, which PERSONS, not a front with a fancy name.



Geee, JJ, it is kind of hard to fit the names of hundreds, thousands, or millions of people on a poster, don't you think?

Quote:

The children have a right, however, not to be educated in a discriminative way - at least you may demand that right for them.



Woohoooo!!!! Atheists certainly are certainly discriminatory about spirituality and so don't have a right to raise kids!!!! Marxists don't have a right to raise kids!!! Any parent with any opinion on anything does not have a right to raise kids!!!! Wait, everyone has opinions, so I guess we are just supposed to toss the kids in dumpsters or kill them before they are born. Oh no, wait....the kids should all be placed in reeducation centers for the State to make them into little communist drones who support everything the State says.
____________
Revelation

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
del_diablo
del_diablo


Legendary Hero
Manifest
posted February 06, 2012 07:36 AM

Elodin: Try again when you have learned how to read, and how to not attack people.
____________



 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2012 09:46 AM
Edited by Corribus at 12:19, 06 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Quote:

As an individual, I have a right to be PROTECTED from hate stuff. Say, I'm gay - who's protecting me from anti-gay organizations? And if I'm becoming part of a Anti-anti-gay organization - who's protecting the rest of the people from the inevitable clashes and possible riots and whatnot?



You have the right not to be beaten up because you are gay. You don't have the right to keep someone else from saying that gay sex is sin. Are you offended by someone's words? Get over it. You personally say quite a lot of hateful and untrue things about Christianity/religion and then you talk about "hate speech." Unbelievable.

Indeed. Unbelievable. Just for the record - I wrote "hate STUFF", not hate SPEECH, but reading never has been your strongpoint, has it? That's why I'm going to answer only this first part.

Anyway, sure, every idiot can of course say, that gay sex is sin. As every idiot can say that women showing themselves unveiled in public are *****s. However, if an organisation says it, and one with a lot of influence at that, and gays are TREATED as "sinners" and are beaten up because they are viewed as no better than child molesters, and if unveiled women are molested and TREATED like *****s ... those organizations are resposible and should be sued accordingly, because their negativity is provoking more than just speech. It's provoking discrimination and even violent action, and don't dare to come up with the Chrisians-love-all bull, and those who act violent or discrimative are no real Christians.

Because if it was just a statement - why mention it AT ALL? People who are interested can read and know about this sin-nonsense. EVERYONE knows the score, and, I mean - WHO CARES? Is anyone caring about whether the neighbours are using contraceptives or have a party in their sleeping room when friends visit? Do I care whether a person shares their bed with man, woman, both or everyone at the same time? No.

No. Organizations must take RESPONSIBILITY for what they preach. If you preach, "NO CONTRACEPTIVES", then you are REPOSNSIBLE for overpopulation problems in the third world. OF COURSE you are. And the world should SUE the Catholic Church for the consequences in mainly Christian regions there. They should put it on trial for it and force them to use their wealth to feed the people.

If you preach that legal things are SIN, you are RESPONSIBLE when "sinners" are discriminated by "good, god-fearing people".
If you preach that all unveiled women are *****s, you are responsible for every offense resulting from it.

Yes, you ARE free to say what you want. But you have to take responsibility for the effect of your words, when you are an influence group. And in the US that means, be prepared to defend yourself in a civil lawsuit. Or better, it SHOULD mean that.

MOD EDIT: Follow the CoC with regard to language, pls.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted February 06, 2012 11:00 AM
Edited by baklava at 11:04, 06 Feb 2012.

Quote:
But those green extremists want to take us back to 100000 BC, make the population drop to under 1 billion, return us to the trees and live in caves and become raw vegans.

That's exactly what they want when they say things like "we should keep an eye on that whole pollution thing, considering that Americans (for example) constitute 5% of the planet's population and produce 25% of the world's CO2 and 30% of planetary waste" or "stop spilling that oil in our oceans, it sort of ****s them up".

There's a possibility that you didn't mean those people but some actual nutcases, but I haven't heard anything about those being too prominent.



Anyway, one thing's kind of unclear to me about the free speech thing in America, and that's legal issues about slander, libel and similar. I mean, those are more or less banned and regulated on paper as far as I've gathered, but I can't figure out how they're enforced. And I'm pretty sure racist organizations (and not just them) rest big time on slanderous rhetoric. After all, what's the difference between, say, Obama's supporters putting up an ad that says "Do your neighbours a favour - shoot a black man today! Paid for by the Ron Paul election committee" and starting an organization that preaches that the Jews invented the Holocaust and are using the blacks as muscle against the whites? I mean, neither of those are true. Both can be proven wrong to a very close level of certainty (meaning if you're an antisemite, you'll still be like "Jews paid that historian" and believe your crap, and similarly if you're a staunch believer in the premise that Ron Paul likes to advertise racism). It's an incredibly crude and lazy example, but you get the point - how exactly do you draw the line?
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OmegaDestroyer
OmegaDestroyer

Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
posted February 06, 2012 01:52 PM
Edited by OmegaDestroyer at 13:53, 06 Feb 2012.

Basically, it all comes down to knowing when to pick your battles.  

I'd love to answer more, but I'm off to an interim possession hearing.  
____________
I am the kaiser
I bring forth the raze

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 06, 2012 02:45 PM
Edited by Corribus at 14:47, 06 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Anyway, one thing's kind of unclear to me about the free speech thing in America, and that's legal issues about slander, libel and similar.

Essentially, you cannot maliciously say or publish information you know to be false (or recklessly ignore whether it might be false) with the intent of harming someone else.

Definitions vary from state to state, but for in US in general my understanding is that it's pretty hard to convict someone of criminal libel or slander, if criminal defamation exists in the given state at all.  Civil rulings are more common, but it's still hard to prove intent in many cases.
____________
Moderating the OSM WOG forum is like being pecked to death by chickens.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Baklava
Baklava


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
posted February 06, 2012 04:19 PM
Edited by baklava at 16:22, 06 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Essentially, you cannot maliciously say or publish information you know to be false (or recklessly ignore whether it might be false) with the intent of harming someone else.

And the KKK is legal?

I mean, it's legal in the entire USA. Without any kind of state-to-state variation, even. You guys sure that bit doesn't need working on? Or is it about the scale of the consequences? I figure that following the Constitution too consistently could lead to some major changes over there.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 06, 2012 05:21 PM

Quote:
And the KKK is legal?


*Sigh* My whole post up and vanished because of an errant keystroke.

Well, let's try again in abbreviated form.

Is the KKK lying when they publish hate-filled speech?

Rather than talking about the KKK, let’s discuss a fictional group, the QQQ, who feel that Martian Americans are inferior to Americans born on Earth.  Supposing for a moment a member of the QQQ publishes a document which expresses as much.  Martian Americans might feel bad as a result of such a document, and it might even be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that some Martian Americans suffer physical/psychological/economic harm as a result, but it becomes a problem when you have to try to prove that the QQQ member published the document with the direct and irrefutable goal of causing such harm.  That’s a fine but important distinction.  It’s not enough to dislike someone , or even hate them and think they deserve to come to harm – it has to be proven that you intended to actually harm them with the material that you published.  Furthermore, BELIEFS aren’t even really in the realm of information that can be proven to be true or false to begin with.  ALL MARTIANS ARE VILE PIGS: true or false?  And more to the point: are the QQQers publishing it in the full knowledge that such a statement is false AND with specific intent to cause a specific person harm?  

A more clear case of libel might be if some member of the QQQ were to tell John Smith’s boss that John Smith is a Martian, in the full knowledge that John Smith is in fact not a Martian AND with the expectation and desire that this will cause John Smith to be harmed, and John Smith subsequently is fired from his job.  Note that the spreader of this lie has nothing really to do with whether he is or is not a member of the QQQ, which leaves the question of the legality of the QQQ moot.  Even in this apparently cut and dry case, though, it’s hard to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the QQQ person spreading this information KNOWS the information to be false (assuming a world where Martians exist, of course) AND, even harder, that the QQQ person is sharing this information with the specific intent to cause harm to John Smith.  Short of an email from the QQQ person telling someone else, “Hey, I bet if we lie and tell John Smith’s boss that John Smith is a Martian, John Smith will get fired”, it’ll be hard to get a defamation charge to stick.

All that said, there are some here who believe that hate speech can cause direct harm to individuals and should therefore be illegal, especially when said speech incites others to violence.  For example, if the QQQ publishes materials which say that all Martian Americans should be killed like the dogs they are, then some unrelated people go out and kill a bunch of Martians, one might conclude that the QQQ should be at least partially criminally responsible for the murders.  However, making hate speech illegal has historically been controversial in the use.  Firstly, from a legal perspective there is difficulty in  PROVING that the speech in question was DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for people who actually did the killing. [For a sort of real-world analogy, consider how hard (and in some ways ludicrous) it has been to prove that violent video games directly cause some people to commit violent crimes - and, hence, that video game manufactures are partly liable in criminal cases.]  But more importantly, there is a long history in the US of people being able to say whatever they believe without persecution by the government, which has made it difficult for hate speech legislation to pass the Constitutional litmus test in the courts.  [Even in the aforementioned case of McCarthyism in the 1950s, it was not so much the freedom of speech that was curtailed (and it certainly wasn’t restricted by law) but using peoples’ speech as evidence that they were guilty of some other, unspecified crime that went along with the anti-Communist paranoia of the era.]  Frankly, I think that’s a good thing.  Expression of beliefs, no matter how repugnant, ought never to be illegal, except in the very obvious cases where people are directly being told to do something specific – that is, “all Martians should be put down like the dogs they are” is something very different from “Hey Joe, I want you to go kill John Smith because he’s a Martian” – and even then, I think the law should fall on the side of caution.  The responsibility of a murderer falls on the shoulders of the murderer, not on someone who may or may not have, in some other time and place, put the idea of murder into the person’s head.

In the end, if you make it a crime to say that all Martians should be exterminated, soon it'll be a crime to say anything that might make anyone feel bad, and if that happens here I might just well move to Mars.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Zenofex
Zenofex


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
posted February 06, 2012 06:57 PM
Edited by Zenofex at 18:58, 06 Feb 2012.

What happens if the organization that spreads hate propaganda is known to actually materialize the things that it preaches? Following your example - QQQ members not only say that Martian Americans should be treated like dogs but are also actively treating them like dogs and there are incontrovertible evidences that they do so. Is QQQ as an organization still not liable and each QQQ member can claim that he/she's acting like an individual or they can be criminalized as a group entity?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 06, 2012 07:06 PM

Quote:
What happens if the organization that spreads hate propaganda is known to actually materialize the things that it preaches?

Then we're not talking about speech any longer and we should be in another thread.  Organizations can't be put on criminal trial, but they can be listed on a civil suit.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Elodin
Elodin


Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
posted February 06, 2012 08:38 PM
Edited by Elodin at 20:43, 06 Feb 2012.

Quote:
Quote:


You have the right not to be beaten up because you are gay. You don't have the right to keep someone else from saying that gay sex is sin. Are you offended by someone's words? Get over it. You personally say quite a lot of hateful and untrue things about Christianity/religion and then you talk about "hate speech." Unbelievable.

Indeed. Unbelievable. Just for the record - I wrote "hate STUFF", not hate SPEECH, but reading never has been your strongpoint, has it? That's why I'm going to answer only this first part.





OK, Sherlock, if you read the topic title it will enlighten you that this thread is about free speech. Further, we had specifically been talking about speech and you were crying about people being able to organize as speak with one voice and seemed to be particularly upset that religious organizations have any voice at all.

So you typed "hate stuff".....ok, we were talking about speech and you were complaining about anyone calling something sin and calling that "sin-calling" hateful. I could say that if I call something sin and you object that you are being discriminatory because you are placing your own opinion on a higher pedestal than mine. Your objecting to me calling something sin that would be hate speech.

Ok, use whatever excuse you want to not answer my points because you usually ignore them anyways for lack of anything rational to counter them with.

Quote:

Anyway, sure, every idiot can of course say, that gay sex is sin. As every idiot can say that women showing themselves unveiled in public are *****s. However, if an organisation says it, and one with a lot of influence at that, and gays are TREATED as "sinners" and are beaten up because they are viewed as no better than child molesters, and if unveiled women are molested and TREATED like *****s ... those organizations are resposible and should be sued accordingly, because their negativity is provoking more than just speech. It's provoking discrimination and even violent action, and don't dare to come up with the Chrisians-love-all bull, and those who act violent or discrimative are no real Christians.



Christianity teaches everyone has sinned, JJ. It also teaches everyone to love everyone else. So noone will beat up anyone else as a response to a Christian message.

The New Testament does not authorize the church to punish any sinner for an sin, beyond disfellowshipping a person who claims to be a Christian but who persists in living in sin and refuses to try to change even after several attempts have been met to reach out to him.

Oh, if you are claiming the New Testament says for believers to punish any sin produce a New Testament quote in context. Also, if you are claiming a Christian denomination teaches to beat up child molesters or anyone else I'd like to see the link to their official teaching.

What Jesus said in regard to the issue is below:

Quote:

Mat 5:44  But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.


Luk 10:27  And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.



Note: Jesus did not go around beating up sinners nor did he teach his followers to do so. Anyone who says he did could only be considered a liar or a person ignorant of his teachings.

Jesus DID go around preaching that everyone must repent of their sins.

Quote:

Mat 4:17  From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.



You are very quick to condemn religious people for saying something is sin. Yet you have no problem at all saying negative things about religious people and religion in general. What gives you the right to say negative things but religious people not the right to say negative things?

You apparently want to outlaw religion from saying anything negative about any group or action. Should the same rules apply to atheist organizations such as "Freedom from religion, so that they would not be allowed to say religion is not true or is delusional or whatever their favorite insult of the time is?

No one has the right to not be offended by the words of another person, JJ. What you have the right to do is to speak back, to ignore the words, or to go home and cry your little eyes out till you feel better.


Quote:

No. Organizations must take RESPONSIBILITY for what they preach. If you preach, "NO CONTRACEPTIVES", then you are REPOSNSIBLE for overpopulation problems in the third world. OF COURSE you are. And the world should SUE the Catholic Church for the consequences in mainly Christian regions there. They should put it on trial for it and force them to use their wealth to feed the people.



No, the Catholic church is not responsible for overpopulation. You seem to be QUITE poorly read. Do you really thing that large families began with the Catholic church???!?!?!?!?  Do you really think that the majority of large families around the world are Catholic?!?!?!? PROVE the world is overpopulated. China is a Catholic nation? Really?

Oh, regardless what any organization says, you don't have to follow their advice. If you believe their message, follow it. If you don't believe it move on along. Not everyone believes in your beliefs either.

Some liberals teach even 10 year old menstruating girls should be having sex as often as they can to figure out what kind of sex they like best and to find "Mr Right for her." Liberals who preach the "free love" hippie sexual devolution are in part responsible for lots of teens getting pregnant out of wedlock and then demand that everyone else support the kid through higher taxes. The liberal mantra of "if it feels good do it" is quite simply idiotic.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
JollyJoker
JollyJoker


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 07, 2012 02:24 AM
Edited by JollyJoker at 07:36, 07 Feb 2012.

Quote:

Christianity teaches everyone has sinned, JJ. It also teaches everyone to love everyone else. So noone will beat up anyone else as a response to a Christian message.

Sure. That's why all Christians and Christian organizations travel through country and world and preach, "we are all sinners, every single one here, so go home and love thy neighbour, the gay one on the right as well as the adultress on the left, sinner or not, because Jesus taught us so. Oh, and don't tell them they are sinners, remember, we ALL are, so before you start pointing your finger, ask yourself whether you are free of sin, and if you find wanting, go home and thank the Lord that you just withstood temptation to judge others."

EDIT:

Also let me comment on this gem of wisdom:
Quote:
No, the Catholic church is not responsible for overpopulation. You seem to be QUITE poorly read. Do you really thing that large families began with the Catholic church???!?!?!?!?  Do you really think that the majority of large families around the world are Catholic?!?!?!? PROVE the world is overpopulated. China is a Catholic nation? Really?


Now, compare that with the wiki article about overpopulation:

Quote:

Limiting birth rates through legal regulations, educating people about family planning, increasing access to birth control and contraception, and extraterrestrial settlement have been suggested as ways to mitigate overpopulation in the future. China and other nations already have regulations limiting the birth rate, with China using the one child policy. Contraception is a response to the fact that nearly 40% of pregnancies are unintended and that in the poorest regions mothers often lack information and the means to control the size of their families.


I leave the conclusion to the QUITE better read people.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Meroe
Meroe


Supreme Hero
Craven Witch
posted February 07, 2012 08:32 AM

@JJ how does that wiki article prove the Catholic Church is responsible for overpopulation???

Overpopulated countries ... China, India etc aren't and have never been Catholic.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
gnomes2169
gnomes2169


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
posted February 07, 2012 08:48 AM

Quote:
@JJ how does that wiki article prove the Catholic Church is responsible for overpopulation???

Overpopulated countries ... China, India etc aren't and have never been Catholic.

This. Also, the catholic church has been around for, what, 2000 (or close to it) years? Population did not change when it came into existence. It did not suddenly spike. Families themselves did not grow in any noticeable manner or number, so what could possibly have happened. Hmmmm...

Advances in medical health far outpaced people's perception of the world, and families were still having 6 kids. The difference was (and here is where the problem lies) that only one, maybe two kids died of disease or tragic accidents and the rest survived, which is a stark contrast to only one or two kids surviving until they were able to breed. And all through out this time, the catholic church was still the same as it was back when it was founded (if quite a bit less powerful). Blaming the church for overpopulation is like blaming the spilled milk for falling, it just happened to be going in that direction. The cause was the person who hit the glass with an Elodin brand baseball bat, not an inanimate object.

Oh, and society balances itself out nicely. The church can say anything they want about contraceptives, but will every catholic blindly follow them? No. Is everyone a catholic? Less than a majority of the population in the US is catholic. Do catholic parents just say, "**** it" and not plan any of their children, because the catholic church does not allow for any thinking, at all, ever? Really JJ, you could have picked a far better argument and battle.
____________
"GNOMES GET OUT OF MY BRAIN"
-Adrius

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
[ This thread is 7 pages long: 1 2 3 4 (5) 6 7 ] < Prev Thread . . . Next Thread >
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.1494 seconds