|
Any religion that preaches a doctrine of eternal torture and damnation for the crime of "non-belief" has no right to say that it promotes peace, or discourages violence. I'm sick of this fucking tautology.
|
It still amazes me how a country like USA still struggles with these issues.
|
On May 28 2011 17:53 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 14:11 SC2Joker wrote:
Please read before posting about Freedom of Speech.
All these freedom of speech shouters are very ignorant on the matter. if you don't actually know your rights (freedom of speech) in its full context don't talk about it. Anyone who's taken even an introductory law class should know that its not as plain and simple as i can say what i want when i want. Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed. Thus speaking out about the legalities of church in public school (separation of church and state) in such a predominantly religious area is asking for trouble. discretionary decision making when it comes to law...its not black and white theres A LOT of gray in the middle. I love this definition of free speech because it instantly kills free speech. Tell me, how exactly is free speech worth shit if it's instantly abolished under the fear of violence? I mean these are your words: Show nested quote +Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed. So for example if i say anything negative about Islam, wich is bound to induce violent behavior, i am suddenly breaking the law? I don't understand why people like you keep sideing with violent people on this debate. Freedom of speech is all fun and games until the other side says they are going to fucking kill you after wich you are suddenly the criminal? Let's imagine that i would threaten you now, saying that your opinion is so offensive that i want to kill you for it. Would you then have to post an apology for your comment? By your own logic ofcourse, i think if anyone would really start threatening they would get banned but just talking about your course of action. Would you apologise to me if i threatend you? Ending with all of that "obscene" is also a subjective word that would have no purpose in any law because any lawyer would instantly trash an argument based on such subjective terms.
Um, yes, if you pointed a gun at me and said, "take those words back," I'm pretty sure I would say, "ok, I am totally wrong. You are completely right." rather than "no, I believe in the freedom of speech and you are wrong." Anybody saying that the latter case is freedom of speech is clearly not understanding the point.
|
No, I think someone who would say what they believe even in the face of death or injury understands the importance of Freedom of Speech better than 99.99% of people. Luckily for you, enough people have already died to grant you Freedom of Speech. Not everyone is that lucky, and to take it for granted to the point of giving it up, is quite insulting to them.
Just because you wouldn't die for your beliefs does not mean you should make that assumption of everyone.
|
On May 28 2011 18:26 naggerNZ wrote:
No, I think someone who would say what they believe even in the face of death or injury understands the importance of Freedom of Speech better than 99.99% of people. Luckily for you, enough people have already died to grant you Freedom of Speech. Not everyone is that lucky, and to take it for granted to the point of giving it up, is quite insulting to them.
Just because you wouldn't die for your beliefs does not mean you should make that assumption of everyone.
Or freedom to make some1 else shut up ? :D
|
Freedom of Speech is something granted to individuals. Public Institutions, however, have guidelines they must follow. One of which, is that they do not take part in promoting religions.
|
On May 28 2011 18:23 Gnaix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 17:53 zalz wrote:On May 28 2011 14:11 SC2Joker wrote:
Please read before posting about Freedom of Speech.
All these freedom of speech shouters are very ignorant on the matter. if you don't actually know your rights (freedom of speech) in its full context don't talk about it. Anyone who's taken even an introductory law class should know that its not as plain and simple as i can say what i want when i want. Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed. Thus speaking out about the legalities of church in public school (separation of church and state) in such a predominantly religious area is asking for trouble. discretionary decision making when it comes to law...its not black and white theres A LOT of gray in the middle. I love this definition of free speech because it instantly kills free speech. Tell me, how exactly is free speech worth shit if it's instantly abolished under the fear of violence? I mean these are your words: Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed. So for example if i say anything negative about Islam, wich is bound to induce violent behavior, i am suddenly breaking the law? I don't understand why people like you keep sideing with violent people on this debate. Freedom of speech is all fun and games until the other side says they are going to fucking kill you after wich you are suddenly the criminal? Let's imagine that i would threaten you now, saying that your opinion is so offensive that i want to kill you for it. Would you then have to post an apology for your comment? By your own logic ofcourse, i think if anyone would really start threatening they would get banned but just talking about your course of action. Would you apologise to me if i threatend you? Ending with all of that "obscene" is also a subjective word that would have no purpose in any law because any lawyer would instantly trash an argument based on such subjective terms. Um, yes, if you pointed a gun at me and said, "take those words back," I'm pretty sure I would say, "ok, I am totally wrong. You are completely right." rather than "no, I believe in the freedom of speech and you are wrong." Anybody saying that the latter case is freedom of speech is clearly not understanding the point.
We aren't talking individual one-time situations. The situation where you are told to take something back at gunpoint is completly different from taking something back because of a threat.
I doubt anyone has ever been told at gunpoint to take something back whilst everyone that is in the public center of attention and is critical of islam will get a threat send to him, every single time.
You cannot allow threats to circumvent freedom of speech because then it's not worth anything. There are many groups out there from religious to extreme political groups that will threaten people for what they say.
If bowing down to threats becomes not just accepted but legal mandate then freedom of speech stops existing. You can no longer be critical of extreme ideas because those very same ideas will often be followed by extreme people willing to threaten you. Even followers of mainstream ideas like religion will threaten you. Sooner or later everyone will just threaten those they don't agree with and get their way.
Freedom of speech must be essentially limitless because it is either free or it isn't. It's not about ideals it is about practically viewing things. Freedom of speech cannot exist in a world where a violent response will silence it. To believe that it can is either foolish or dishonest if not both.
|
This hasn't got a thing to do with freedom of speech though, not like any1 cared for his opinion, they were pissed because he was gona rat them out for their little ilegal prayer/trying to force them not to do it.
|
You're right. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's just people being total assholes to some kid who did nothing wrong, but rather just didn't want religious overtones to his graduation.
|
On May 28 2011 12:34 fakingit wrote:
I am a christian, have been my whole life and for ever will be. And this story makes me sick and ashamed to be part of a community that would treat someone so horribly. These "christians" should hang their heads in shame! I see no love, respect, or support in how they treated that young man. Can you imagine as a christian haveing to sit threw someone preaching that God doesn't exist? And that if you do believe in him your a fool or an idiot. I'm sure there are millions of people that believe that, but should we as christians have to be subjected to it? What these people did is the same thing. It's no wonder that athiest's and other religions go running from christianity when this is how the community treats people. It's gotten to the point where christians have some sort of "god complexe" (sorry about the pun) that they think they are better or have the right to treat people however they see fit. When what they should really be doing is loving and supporting eachother AND the people outside of christianity. What happened here ISN'T of God, muchly the opposite. These people need to get their heads out of their asses, climb off their high horses and seek what being of God truly means, cause this isn't it.
this was a nice post
|
On May 28 2011 18:26 naggerNZ wrote:
No, I think someone who would say what they believe even in the face of death or injury understands the importance of Freedom of Speech better than 99.99% of people. Luckily for you, enough people have already died to grant you Freedom of Speech. Not everyone is that lucky, and to take it for granted to the point of giving it up, is quite insulting to them.
Just because you wouldn't die for your beliefs does not mean you should make that assumption of everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
I am merely trying to point out that the freedom of speech is not so clear cut black and white as people make it out to be and there are many gray areas. I do not understand your ad hominem attacks against me saying that I would not die for my beliefs. I am merely pointing out that for example trivial matters such as if someone claimed blue is the best color in the world, and I disagreed, that I would be stupid to demand the other person to accept my proposal if they would threaten to kill me to prove they are correct. I am not saying that prayer in school is a trivial matter, but I also don't believe that the approach the kid took was the best one. Just trying to say that it's pretty gray rather than being completely black or white, while the article seems to be completely supportive of the kid without mentioning any faults.
|
On May 28 2011 12:22 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 12:12 ryanAnger wrote:On May 28 2011 12:10 JesusOurSaviour wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 28 2011 11:57 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 11:54 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On May 28 2011 11:44 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 11:39 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On May 28 2011 11:33 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 11:28 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On May 28 2011 11:10 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 11:05 JesusOurSaviour wrote:On May 28 2011 10:58 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 10:39 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Christians should not force anyone to do anything. Right from creation, right from the very beginning, God gave his children (us), free will to choose to obey, or choose to disobey. By disobeying, we make up our own rules!! (see Devil's conversation with Eve, "Your eyes will be opened and you will be like God knowing good and evil." Ha - this is partially true - you won't "know" good and evil, you will DEFINE it once you reject God) Load of crap. See the following: + Show Spoiler +God allowed evil to enter the world as part of the risk He took in giving humanity free will. i.e. He loved mankind so much that He wanted to give us the chance to grow and mature and choose Him and the good life for ourselves, rather than being set on auto-pilot. All of which I'm sure you're all familiar with. I think it's a nice idea - the end goal being that God gets a family of children who have developed hearts and wisdom like His, and turned away from evil.
Obviously there are questions as to whether it was fair of Him to allow us to stuff things up so badly when a little more guidance might have spared us a lot of pain, and might have made His 'family' rather bigger. But I guess I'm basically willing to give Him the benefit of the doubt on that one, and assume He knew what He was doing, and has some kind of plan to tie up the loose ends. We'll see.
My real conundrum, though, is about the actual story in Genesis 2-3 - and please note I don't wish to open the debate on the literal/metaphorical nature of this story, which I think I pretty much know all your various opinions about. Rather, I'm going to assume that, either way, the story has an emblematic status which somehow applies to theology.
My question is, if God wanted us to develop maturity and discernment, doesn't it seem slightly backward that the tree they were forbidden to touch was said to offer that very thing - the knowledge of good and evil? God says 'if you eat from it you will surely die'. Which is true of course - when they figure out they can try things their own way they pretty much immediately start stuffing things up and killing each other and things. The serpent says of it "You will not surely die, for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." And perhaps that's true too - there's no certainty they'll die; there's a slim chance they'll get it right themselves and not ruin everything. In any case the serpent is just trying to incite them to rebellion - don't listen to everything Mr Big says; don't submit to being His slave. Do what you want.
Some possible solutions to the puzzle:
1) My argument is wrong: God didn't want us to develop maturity etc.; He wanted us to get everything right, and for the world to stay perfect, and therefore when He said He didn't want them to eat the fruit, He meant it.
>>Question: so why put it there? To give them the choice? But if they're better off without the choice, isn't that kinda stupid?
2) God knew all along that they'd take the fruit, and put it there intentionally, so that they'd take it and learn some important lessons - painful though it would be for all concerned - which would ultimately be to their/humanity's betterment.
>>Question: so why does He forbid them to touch it?
>>Question: is it even plausible to say we're somehow better off in a post-fall world? Is that kind of sick and sadistic? Or is that like saying it's sadistic of a parent to take the training wheels off their kid's bike, knowing they'll fall off the first time, but will eventually acquire a new skill?
3) Perhaps it wasn't so much that He was forbidding them, but just that He had to warn them, in all fairness, that it would be a path of suffering, even though it would ultimately be the best.
>>But in that case, why not just say 'kids, you have the following two options - you decide'? Instead, He says 'you must not take option 2'.
4) Perhaps in their auto-pilot state they're not able to make decisions like that anyway, so He has to trick them, and maybe overstate the case a little just to make it more interesting.
>>Hm, oh dear, interesting questions arise as to the nature of God. Though potentially it could be seen as a parallel to a parent who tells his kid not to cross the road on her own, not because he never wants her to cross the road, but because she's not ready yet, and in this stage of her development what she needs is set rules that will keep her safe. So, uh, we're currently in the state of having disobeyed, strayed onto the road, been hit by a bus, and are now very slowly recovering, and very slowly figuring out how to conduct ourselves better in future - possibly mixed with a good deal of angst directed towards our dad who should have protected us better. What happened Tony? Why did you lose faith? Did you not read the gospels and were you not amazed at God's truth when you first believed? "For not all have faith", indeed there will be apostates from Christianity, but why Tony? Firstly, way to avoid the points made. Rather than admit that you don't have all the answers just turn the question around to something completely irrelevant. Secondly, if you're interested, you can see my previous blogs on the issue: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=6http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=5http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=4http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/blogitems.php?site=abc&page=3 Not avoiding mate, just not throwing pearls before swine. You of all should know that God is light and in him is only truth. If you failed to remain in truth and continue to believe in it, then I guess Satan's gripped you pretty well. No point wasting my time in a fruitless theology lesson And your attitude is the perfect reason why I no longer wish to be associated with Christians and the Church. I'm pretty sure you don't want to be associated with Christians and the church because you rejected God first. Christians and the church are made up by humans and humans are pretty fleshly. That doesn't change your relationship with God - it's your choice to not draw near to him, just as it is for me to ignore God when he teaches me something. To each is given a choice, will you take the right one? Or will you be a fool. Btw I just read your long spiel about the inconsistencies of Genesis. Immature, whiny and arrogant are the three adjectives I would use to describe your questioning. You really think a real God will knowingly pass on such erroneous information full of mistake to his people? Well I guess you don't believe in God do you? So whatever you read from the bible is only to serve your purpose of debunking him. God did promise that if you seek you will find. If you seek to insult and blaspheme, then you will bear your fruits, just bad ones. The level of your delusion is incredulous. If you truly believed what you claim, then you should be a lot more considerate at how you address non-Christians, given that they are going to spend an eternity in Hell. Yet you treat it like some sort of "you fools should learn a lesson for not believing in God". Which really just goes to show you think you're being a Christian, where you're nothing more than just a judgmental Pharisee. Tony the truth is you are an apostate - meaning you already know all you need to know. Yet you did not humble yourself to find out WHY God wrote what he wrote in the bible. I went through the same stage, and my faith wavered when no one at my old church was could explain anything of import. I guess you just have to go somewhere else to find answers right? Try and find a reformed evangelical church. I could not find answers with Hillsong type churches as they live off baby food. www.carm.org is not too bad to start off. Learning about systematic theology is also a good way to shore up your faith. The problem is, too many Christians are just eating baby food and not maturing into their faith. If a long-time Christian doesn't even understand how the Old and New covenant relate and what "I came to fulfill the law" means, then I guess he really should spend more time thinking about how the bible fits together. 66 books, over a Huge time period with 22? authors? It all fits. Something which really shook me as a young Christian was the fact that so many Christians around me are just so ignorant and content with these 1-liner answers like "Oh it's the new covenant, so we don't do anything written in the OT". Sadly, this is the status quo for most Christians. Well Tony, you already know that Jesus is the way the truth the life. Your choice to go to hell has no bearing on me, we have to make choices and some of us make the wrong choices. I will never convert you and I will never convert anyone. Each comes to faith because God wanted you to come to know Him. The ultimate decider on whether you have faith is God. I have already spent 4 posts and 1 PM trying to exhort you to humble yourself before God. Am I wasting my time? I don't know. God has his plans for everyone and the seeds that are sown here at TL in religious discussions may bear fruit, who knows. So God planned for me to go hell? That's basically what you're saying. How old are you Olinim? Lemme guess, somewhere between 14-22 (90% of TL-ers are anyway) I am 20 years old. Will I continue to believe in God till I die? I hope so. But life has many distractions and Satan is powerful. Do I know who God has chosen to be his Elect? No. Why did Jesus tell us to spread the good news then? If God is the one who chooses, then whats the point of us telling everyone the good news if people are going to just reject him and God has already "chosen" those who will accept him? We evangelise because we don't know who God has chosen to be saved. We evangelise because we know that you will go to hell otherwise. So we reach out and tell you the good news which saved us. I guess you could argue that any Christian who does not evangelise through action or word, is a selfish prick. Back to your point Olinim - your life is still ahead of you and who knows what kind of suffering you are going to go through in your life. You may find God in a time when all is lost. On the contrary you may never find God but live your life out in peace as a rich businessman. Whatever the case may be, life hasn't ended so don't speculate too quickly whether or not God has chosen you to be in his Kingdom yet.  Just out of curiosity, how do you know that you are "saved"? How could anyone possibly know that they are "saved"? Has God spoken to you, first hand? I'm going off topic and have been for the last few posts. Last post for this thread from me, Ultimately we live by faith. Yet is this faith blind? Have not God's prophecies been fulfilled time and time again? When Jesus said he is the fulfilment of the Law and the prophets, he wasn't kidding. The ENTIRE Old testament Post-TheFall is about the longing for the messiah. Now the messiah has come, what more proof do we need of God's good promises? I guess people always want more proof. "If God came to earth and destroyed all the wicked and corrupt authorities, I will believe in Him". "If God saved that baby which was starving, then I would believe in him". Yet, did the Jews believe when Jesus came and did countless miracles? No. They killed him. And you are no better than a Jew. I am no better. I would have killed Jesus as well if I was a Jew in that day. Once again, we believe because we have reestablished this relationship which was once severed. We feel the bonds of the relationship, while those who arent' friends with God obviously don't feel the same way. Faith man!
you on the other hand, lmao
|
The media always sides with the "victim", don't get me wrong the school parents and schoolmates were a mob of jackasses, but so was the kid imo. Would be interesting if any1 recorded the way he was threatening them to shut down their little ceremony.
|
On May 28 2011 18:59 Gnaix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 18:26 naggerNZ wrote:
No, I think someone who would say what they believe even in the face of death or injury understands the importance of Freedom of Speech better than 99.99% of people. Luckily for you, enough people have already died to grant you Freedom of Speech. Not everyone is that lucky, and to take it for granted to the point of giving it up, is quite insulting to them.
Just because you wouldn't die for your beliefs does not mean you should make that assumption of everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theaterI am merely trying to point out that the freedom of speech is not so clear cut black and white as people make it out to be and there are many gray areas. I do not understand your ad hominem attacks against me saying that I would not die for my beliefs. I am merely pointing out that for example trivial matters such as if someone claimed blue is the best color in the world, and I disagreed, that I would be stupid to demand the other person to accept my proposal if they would threaten to kill me to prove they are correct. I am not saying that prayer in school is a trivial matter, but I also don't believe that the approach the kid took was the best one. Just trying to say that it's pretty gray rather than being completely black or white, while the article seems to be completely supportive of the kid without mentioning any faults.
Freedom of speech is not the requirement of everyone to AGREE with what everyone says, merely that they do not have the right to stop them from saying it. I wasn't using Ad Hominem attacks, you stated yourself that if someone put a gun to your head, you would lie and say things contrary to what you believe, than risk getting shot.
I feel like we keep coming back to this point, but THIS STORY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The school was breaking the law (THE FIRST AMENDMENT), and this kid called them on it.
|
Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed.
Thats not the test. Anything which is obscene or which is a direct incitement to violence is barred by law.
So I can get up on a podium and insult you and if i am telling the truth then I can't even be sued for libel.
But I can't get up on a podium and tell people to kill you. Unless I do it sarcastically or it is obvious that I am using hyperbole.
You don't need to have taken any law classes to know this. Just read the newspaper.
edit: Also malicious falsehoods can be taken to court for libel. But you have to prove malice. In the US there is a very broad protection for freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly. All deriving from the first ammendment.
|
On May 28 2011 19:08 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed. Thats not the test. Anything which is obscene or which is a direct incitement to violence is barred by law. So I can get up on a podium and insult you and if i am telling the truth then I can't even be sued for libel. But I can't get up on a podium and tell people to kill you. Unless I do it sarcastically or it is obvious that I am using hyperbole. You don't need to have taken any law classes to know this. Just read the newspaper. edit: Also malicious falsehoods can be taken to court for libel. But you have to prove malice. In the US there is a very broad protection for freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly. All deriving from the first ammendment.
+1 Up-vote for this great post. I wish everyone was as knowledgable and sensible.
|
On May 28 2011 19:18 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 19:08 redviper wrote:Anything obscene or that which would induce violent behavior is not allowed. Thats not the test. Anything which is obscene or which is a direct incitement to violence is barred by law. So I can get up on a podium and insult you and if i am telling the truth then I can't even be sued for libel. But I can't get up on a podium and tell people to kill you. Unless I do it sarcastically or it is obvious that I am using hyperbole. You don't need to have taken any law classes to know this. Just read the newspaper. edit: Also malicious falsehoods can be taken to court for libel. But you have to prove malice. In the US there is a very broad protection for freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly. All deriving from the first ammendment. +1 Up-vote for this great post. I wish everyone was as knowledgable and sensible.
the only time you have to prove malice or new york times malice as it is commonly referred to in a defamation case is when the target of the defamation is a public official or a public figure. this is because the freedom of speech is there to protect opposing viewpoints and their safe expression, which often come up in the realm of politics.
the actual elements of defamation i.e. libel, slander, etc are:
false and defamatory communication made about plaintiff, culpable publication to a third party that understands, fault as to falsity (depending on who plaintiff is), proof of damages.
i can lie about you all day, but if it's something that would not damage you, like if i said you don't know anything about thermodynamics (assuming your job does not require an understanding of thermodynamics) there is no damage done, meaning no case.
Also, whoever said public corporations don't get free speech haven't heard of the Citizens United case. where the supreme court said corporations are entitled to the same free speech protections as private citizens. (but really what it meant is corporations with bottomless coffers can now throw their money behind political candidates.)
|
This whole story reminds me of a Quote
"If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian." - Mark Twain
These people are pretty intolerant and mean spirited.
|
Christianity. If you're not one of them, just shut the fuck up for your own safety.
|
On May 28 2011 09:58 I_Love_Bacon wrote:
Say I'm sitting out on my patio and my neighbors are having a barbecue. They're playing music and having a good time, but they're also a little too loud. They're 1 db level over the acceptable range. Now, I have every right to call the police and complain. But, I'm not a selfish asshole, and I'll concede at the moment so that many people can enjoy themselves and I'll be a better person myself for being able to acknowledge the desires of others.
What is it with people and their nonsensical analogies?
Some people just don't get it. Quite sad. Quite sad.
Shit like this makes me hope that one day, these people are out-populated by radical Muslims and enjoy the theocracy they will build upon the constitutional infringements Christians propagated and apathetics let be. Not that a theocracy of any faith was any better, just picking Islam because Christians seem to like it the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
