It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government to pastor: Renounce your faith!

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


The christians are only oppressing other people because they let them. People need to get some emotional willpower and just shrug all this stupid hate speech off. It's not as hard as it sounds.

When it turns to violence than the christians are just proving everyone elses point. That they are indeed very hateful.

When we start telling people what they can and cannot say that is when we start losing our freedoms. This to me seems like a loss of freedom.




posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Reply to theendisnear69

Well, that's why we have crimes and consequences against them (hate crimes). Your freedom of speech is not to be used as a voice of abuse, slander and dictatatorial biased personal opinion, but rather was intended to be the freedom to voice objective reason. Have you forgotten what this country was founded on? Why it was founded and why people came here in the first place? To escape oppression.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


Including opression that prevented them from saying things that might hurt other people's feelings. Never forget that. And hate crime laws are utterly ridiculous, not to mention redundant. EXACTLY what was predicted to happen when they were first being discussed is happening. Many people stood up when those legislations began and said "Wait, beating someone, setting fire to their home, slandering them, and vandalizing their property are already illegal and punnishable. This is going to lead first to having different sets of laws for different people and then it will lead into making things which are NOT intended by our laws to be illegal, just distastefull and rude, into illegal actions because they're considered "hatefull.""

Guess what? We're already seeing the multiple sets of laws issue fleshing itself out in the US court system as well as in daily life. We have a guy like Don Imus who makes a harmless joke, loses his job, and was sued all while pressure was being put on the FCC by special interest groups to find something he could be charged with legally. Thank God that Imus managed to win in the end, even though his reputation was smeared and he was painted as a bigot, he still had the last laugh. The next guy may not be so lucky. We're seeing what the next step in that equation will be in Canada with this story. Sticks & stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me used to be the law of the land. There's a reason why in just 20 years that saying has gone from one every school child knew by heart to being one that few, if any kids have heard said by any authority figure. The more liberal side of our government is trying to declare that words are as dangerous as weapons where individuals are concerned and should be regulated as such while the conservatives are saying the same about words as they relate to corporations. Two parties, two supposedly different agendas, one pushing us together like sheep from the left side, the other pushing us in from the right side, both working together to get us all lined up for the trip through the slaughterhouse door.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Yes, but at some point freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the persuit of happines for everyone collide and contradict. If we don't work on a revision or clarification of these laws we'll soon have an extremely divided America and a disgruntled national and planetary citizenry in all civilized and major world governments.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Including opression that prevented them from saying things that might hurt other people's feelings. Never forget that.


If those things said that hurt other people's feelings follow a line of unbiased reason and flawless existential and universal logic, then yes, but if those things said are infinging on other's persuits of happiness and the ability to live their lives without the media of a constant religious murmering in their ear, then no.

You can't just play with one law and one right and liberty and disregard the others. Never forget that.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Including opression that prevented them from saying things that might hurt other people's feelings. Never forget that.


If those things said that hurt other people's feelings follow a line of unbiased reason and existential and universal logic, then yes, but if those things said are infinging on other's persuits of happiness and the ability to live their lives without the media of a constant religious murmering in their ear, then no.

You can't just play with one law and one right and liberty and disregard the others. Never forget that.


Dude, nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to never be offended at something! Plus, if you want to define words as being something that can violate a person's right to persue happiness, then let's just go ahead and outlaw speech entirely because no matter what you say, someone's gonna get pissed off. We need to outlaw the girl that prepares my morning coffee at Starbucks from making a negative comment about the weather because that basically brings me down. We gotta outlaw the news media reporting anything negative or sad, because after hearing about 4 boy scouts killed in a tornado, I really don't feel very happy. We gotta outlaw all this conspiratorial talk on ATS because some of this gloom and doom stuff is akin to reading Poe while popping downers like they were candy.

You have no right to not be offended, but you have every right in the world to not take offense (2 entirely different concepts). Unfortunately, the media and the special interest groups are trying to force a reversal of that... making you a racist/bigot/hatemonger/jerk/etc if you fail to take offense at something they define as offensive while making it seem like we all have a Constitutional right that protects us from having to hear offensive things. It's all mucked up, man.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


I don't see how words can infringe on another persons pursuit of happiness.

The only thing I see coming out of this are more loss of freedoms, and people not being able to say anything that offends anythone else.

Opinions are like a$$holes everybody has them. Sometimes they will offend people, we just need to learn to get over it and just do whats right in our own eyes.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

If Christianity and various other religions wish to oppress the citizens of the world their universal, existential and emotional right to love who they desire with all their heart, then make it be known and reprimand them for it. It's a two way road.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]


What you said above is a Hate Crime under your definition because you would "reprimand" them based solely on their beliefs and opinions. Yes it is a two way street.

Opinion should never be a crime, no matter how disturbing or controversial. In this case the newspaper chose to publish the comments. Should the newspaper be silenced as well?

I should say at this point; I could care less about the topic and I'm arguing in regards to the principle. I don't care if Gay people paint themselves green, marry thirty other Gay's and worship frog's while living in caves, as long as they do it in private and don't force it on me or others.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Well, my point exactly. Thank you for seeing it. How can we live under a declaration of independence and a constitution that states that we all have the right to persue happiness and we have freedom of speech, yet everyone's idea of happiness differs and some are not allowed to persue their happiness because of law or otherwise?



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What you said above is a Hate Crime under your definition because you would "reprimand" them based solely on their beliefs and opinions. Yes it is a two way street.


No, because they are using their opinions and beliefs to harm others and fearmongeringly dictate others.


Opinion should never be a crime, no matter how disturbing or controversial. In this case the newspaper chose to publish the comments. Should the newspaper be silenced as well?


You're right, but forced opinion should be reprimanded. No, the newspaper should not be silenced, it is only acting as an intercom in a nation that has freedom of press. To get these things out to the public to see, desensitize to, and converse about is extremely educational and helpful for any needed progress now or future.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Y'see, there's a big difference between a guy arguing that homosexuals should be second-class citizens under the law, and the Starbucks barrista making a comment about the weather.

There's also the fact that she's probably never going to beat the crap out of you, and tie you to a barbed wire fence in Wyoming to die of exposure because she disagrees with your assessment of the weather. Nor is anyone who hears her likely to do so in her stead.

SUbtle distinctions perhaps, but still distinctions



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
There's also the fact that she's probably never going to beat the crap out of you, and tie you to a barbed wire fence in Wyoming to die of exposure because she disagrees with your assessment of the weather. Nor is anyone who hears her likely to do so in her stead.


Oh, I see. So from that assessment I take it that you have been 100% in support of every effort to profile criminals, racially and otherwise, silence any protest rally, round up Japanese during WWII and place them into camps, etc, etc, etc. All actions were done based on what one of these folks who hold a particular view or belong to a particular group might do based on past history of one or more members.

...and people say George Bush has a crappy view of the first amendment. Sheesh!



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

No, because they are using their opinions and beliefs to harm others and fearmongeringly dictate others.


Who decides which opinions are correct? You? A majority?

Please explain how expressing an opinion brings harm to others. Wouldn't a better answer be for people to simply ignore opinions they don't agree with as long as they have the same right to express their own opinions?

You did notice they were also ordered to not express their opinion on the Internet. Under that premise, you can kiss ATS goodbye. Censorship is a dangerous thing. Far to dangerous to let out of the bag for any reason.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Who decides which opinions are correct? You? A majority?


When opinions disrupt fact and happiness they're going too far. Remember here, opinion is not fact, nor is it logical. It is nothing more than an empty assumption, dishonest didact, or vacuous unevidential belief.


Please explain how expressing an opinion brings harm to others. Wouldn't a better answer be for people to simply ignore opinions they don't agree with as long as they have the same right to express their own opinions?


Hypothetical scenerio: If the world is going to end and I have the factual evidence on how to save it, but no one understands it because they're ignorant of the sciences, and rather they listen to some mad man's illogical baseless opinion of either myself or my findings, and in fact I do not gather the support that I need to save the world because of this, then everyone dies. That's some harm.


You did notice they were also ordered to not express their opinion on the Internet. Under that premise, you can kiss ATS goodbye. Censorship is a dangerous thing. Far to dangerous to let out of the bag for any reason.



o·pin·ion
–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


ATS already stands for that. It's called deny ignorance. The definition of opinion defines in itself that it is exactly that. The only thing dangerous is listening to someone's opinion of something and then following that ideology. Opinions mean absolutely nothing when up against factual certainty.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

[edit on 12-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:58 PM
link   
The main problem with you argument about ATS is that the instant someone veers from purely stating the facts, they have postulated an opinion. If you posted "George Bush continued reading "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren for several minutes after learning about the first plane hitting the World Trade Tower" then you have just presented a fact. The instant you incorporate any form of personal comment about that such as "he is an idiot", "shrub", "Bush minor" etc, welcome to the world of opinions which can potentially affect someone's right to happiness under your previous description! Please censor yourself to ensure you do not run afowl of our stringent rules against allowing your freedom of speech to negatively impact someone else's civil liberties!



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


You know what I meant, but you chose to dodge the question.

What you are saying is that the simple statement that Homosexuality is wrong is reason enough to deny another persons freedoms.

Far more dangerous things are said on ATS every day of the year. Should ATS be shut down in Canada by this Tribunal? It would be the exact same thing.

Your comments about Christians could incite others to commit violent acts against them. Should you be censored as well? There is a long history of violence against Christians, including Churches being burned down and people walking into private meetings and shooting them in recent history. I could easily make the same argument against people who think Christianity is wrong as you are making against people who think Homosexuality is wrong.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
While I actually don't care for his moral lectures in regards of homosexuality, the fact that a government would step in and call him out is quite ridiculous. Just shows what govt bureaucracy will do if you allow it to indulge itself.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
You know what I meant, but you chose to dodge the question.


No, perhaps you should restate or indicate any part that I did not honestly understand.


What you are saying is that the simple statement that Homosexuality is wrong is reason enough to deny another persons freedoms.


Yes. It's a direct reaction of him trying to deny, insult and flame another person's freedoms. Respect each other's freedoms and this won't happen to begin with.


Far more dangerous things are said on ATS every day of the year. Should ATS be shut down in Canada by this Tribunal? It would be the exact same thing.


Not ATS itself, but such members should be warned or banned, and they are taken care of. Remember ATS is a microgovernment.


Your comments about Christians could incite others to commit violent acts against them. Should you be censored as well?


No. I don't have any opinions regarding Christianity or their institution, only facts.


There is a long history of violence against Christians, including Churches being burned down and people walking into private meetings and shooting them in recent history. I could easily make the same argument against people who think Christianity is wrong as you are making against people who think Homosexuality is wrong.


Then do it. Let's hear why homosexuality is wrong. I would like to hear this argument. One's right to persue one's love under the persuit of happiness is completely different then one's right to attempt to stifle that persuit of happiness and love through one's biased, unfactual and illogical dogmatic opinion.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Please censor yourself to ensure you do not run afowl of our stringent rules against allowing your freedom of speech to negatively impact someone else's civil liberties!


Yes, I am congruent with you on this statement. Please censor your ignorance and debate with facts and logic. Tha'ts pretty much the ToC and the motto of this website too.



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Ahh the debate is getting intense it feels good for once Im not in the middle
Ill think Ill just sit back and throw some jabs in once in awhile......continue on boys



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Then do it. Let's hear why homosexuality is wrong.


I have no opinion about Homosexuality. You missed part of one of my posts. I have no objection to Gay Marriage either.

My argument is that censorship is wrong. You can not be for censorship and for freedom of speech at the same time, as they are one in the same issue.

You seem to be arguing that freedom of speech should only be granted to those who agree with you. I'm willing to extend it to everyone equally. Therein lies the difference in our points of view.

I am an adult of reasonable intelligence and I can look past or ignore comments I don't agree with. Everyone else has that same capacity.

A little saying we learned as children was actually quite profound; Sticks and stones, can break my bones, but names can never hurt me.

Canada has laws which protect against violence, just as America does. If someone harms someone else for being Gay, they should be locked up. There is no need for any other laws that take everyone else's rights away. Gays deserve equal rights, but not special rights.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join