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.

 

Teen arrested for 'blasphemous T-shirt'

page: 9
3
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Hm. We have gang starring going on in this thread I just noticed. The post above me had no stars even after it was edited out but now it has a star.



No point in submitting the serious post I wanted to if this is the case in this thread.




posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I could put a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Cops are loser jocks from high school that couldn't do anything better with their lives..."
And while it wouldn't be illegal to do so, I'm not naive enough to look around in bewilderment when I get pulled over three times a week. OK?
Obviously, there is a pretty large disparity between what one CAN say and what one SHOULD say if they want to avoid legal troubles. Calling Jesus the C-word is meant to be obscene and nothing more. Now when people start getting arrested for wearing shirts that say vote for X; or otherwise cogent social commentary, then I'll be angry.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall
I could put a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Cops are loser jocks from high school that couldn't do anything better with their lives..."
And while it wouldn't be illegal to do so, I'm not naive enough to look around in bewilderment when I get pulled over three times a week. OK?
Obviously, there is a pretty large disparity between what one CAN say and what one SHOULD say if they want to avoid legal troubles. Calling Jesus the C-word is meant to be obscene and nothing more. Now when people start getting arrested for wearing shirts that say vote for X; or otherwise cogent social commentary, then I'll be angry.


Interesting point. What if that same T-Shirt said "Satan is a [SNIP]". Would the teen still have been arrested?

Mod edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors
I've asked nicely


[edit on 27-6-2008 by Gemwolf]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Some things are just not appropriate. The boy should have known where it might be appropriate to wear this shirt, he knew it was a shocking statement, that rebelion is surely why he purchased it to wear. But freedom of self expression must have boundries IMO, or offensiveness would be publicly rampant. I mean, if I stood in a glass case in the middle of town square naked and masturbating but calling it freedom of expression does that make it acceptable? NO. A display like that would need to be limited to those who would appreciate it, not force it on everyone.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Promecus
 


Excellent point! It would seem that because Christianity through time has managed to brainwash so many weak minds that we should pay more respect to that than anything else.

In all honesty, when dealing with abstract things and nonexistent fairy-tales like Christianity and the likes of that, the people who "enjoy" this should just deal with a greater and greater number of people not sharing their pathetic beliefs.
They might as well get pissed over someone liking Mickey Mouse more than Donald (which for some people is an issue, hehe).

We should never start to respect religion for more than it is. This t-shirt is just another form of satiric view from the other side of the table. Some find it rough, some find it funny and some don't care. But religious freaks should never come and claim their feelings hold more right to be respected than other people's... otherwise I will strike them down with vengeance and furious anger... or how does that go x)

If this proves anything it's that Christianity holds no tolerance and when confronted with satire they lash out because their old defense of "I don't care, I have faith" isn't quite cutting it anymore, exposing their utter weakness and showing what they are... poor hopeless people, that aren't strong on their own.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 

Totally!

Throughout the thread I have repeatedly asked the offended people why their offense should matter more than mine.

Here, here, here, and particulary here.

I have yet to receive a single response...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by flice
 


This is a good video on that.
Maybe when school starts back, you can actually listen in history classes.
Atheist stats



[edit on 27-6-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Clearskies
 

Great, start a tread on that if you want. Now, could you please stick to the topic?

And again. Why is me being offended irrelevant to all the moralists?

Edit: That goes for blupblups post below to. Go to Clearskies new thread...
Please pretty please?

Regards

g


[edit on 27/6/08 by gekko]

[edit on 27/6/08 by gekko]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Reply to clearskies

"Content from external source"


While Stalin, Mao, and company were certainly among the most of insidious of historical figures, those who claim they killed because of their atheism failed to show any connection between their atheism and the massacres. The historical truth is that they killed to eliminate political opposition. Moreover, they forbade religion so they could, in essence, establish themselves as God-like leaders, as many Chinese who suffered Mao's tyranny will tell you. Kim Jung Il continues this strategy in North Korea.

Regardless of how evil these men were/are, they did not kill in the name of atheism. They were merely atheists who killed. This is a huge logical difference-- not that religious people are generally persuaded by logic. For example, in the Bible, which Christians say is the perfect word of a perfect God, God says "Thou shalt not kill" in the same section in which he says that people who work on the sabbath should be killed. Would a perfect God contradict himself like that? Jesus also commanded his followers to slaughter anyone who does not accept him as the son of God. (Luke 19:27--"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.")

Just look at the loving history of Christianity. What better way to represent a loving God than with Inquisitions and burnings at the stake?

History is replete with examples of religious people using violence to force their beliefs on others. Humanists don't strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people in public places in the name of their skepticism, nor do they crash planes into buildings, nor start wars against people in other countries because the people there don't share their nonbelief.

Scientists, who overwhelmingly tend not to be religious, are responsible for nearly all of human progress. That's because they utilize reason rather than the silly superstitions on which most people rely. It’s religion, not science, that threatens people with violence, torture, death, and even eternal damnation if you don’t agree with its ideas. Physicists never bullied people into believing Einstein’s Relativity Theory, and did you ever hear of Catholics falling victim to a Galilean inquisition? When was the last time a war was fought over some scientific dispute? When you think about it, wars are much more likely to be fought over stupid religious differences, not over who's the most logical.

Definitions of "superstition" from www.dictionary.com:
su·per·sti·tion
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Religion will no longer cause such harm only when it's widely scorned and ridiculed as the abject superstition that it is. The Bible, Quran, and other fairy-tales do not prove the existence of God any more than Japanese monster movies prove the existence of Godzilla.

[edit on 27/6/08 by blupblup]

[edit on 27/6/08 by blupblup]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


These same leaders implemented State Atheism

Atheism means"one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God".
So, logically there would be no worship of any despot as God.
To broadly state that there is no link is absurd.

Also, the T-shirt is stupid.


[edit on 27-6-2008 by Clearskies]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Let's stick to the topic please guys.


Wig

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:32 AM
link   
How ironic, to have a thread about censorship and free speech, and the forum you are having the discussion in is itself censoring the thread.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Wig
 


Don't you just love irony? There is however a difference between hard censorship and keeping to the rules you agreed to, when you joined. There are thousands of boards where you can swear to your heart's desire. This, however, is not one of them.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Hm. We have gang starring going on in this thread I just noticed. The post above me had no stars even after it was edited out but now it has a star.



No point in submitting the serious post I wanted to if this is the case in this thread.



So you will not post a serious thread cause you do not get your expected stars?
Whoopidy boo hoo.

I post what I feel regardless of how you'll take it. Not because people might not star me appropriately.

I love how you have "Deny Ignorance" in your picture... given your state of existence.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gemwolf
reply to post by Wig
 


Don't you just love irony? There is however a difference between hard censorship and keeping to the rules you agreed to, when you joined. There are thousands of boards where you can swear to your heart's desire. This, however, is not one of them.



Also, I do not think people come here to "Swear to their hearts desire".
People just either 1. Are discussing the OP; which is what it is about.
2. People have slipped in the occasional cuss; due to passionate posts.

I may go to another forum so I could swear; but where would I get such topics as these to discuss?


[edit on 27-6-2008 by GrimTroll]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GrimTroll
 


I think what she meant was that it was a troll-fest.
She said the post ABOVE hers.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Yeah the post above hers was a post I made, accidentally by quoting my old post, instead of clicking edit.

The whole thread is filled with very good material.
She's just pouting cause she isnt getting stars.

Edit: replaced "Post" with "Thread"

[edit on 27-6-2008 by GrimTroll]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD
Hm. We have gang starring going on in this thread I just noticed.


I gave you a star.
Not the first either even though we disagree. If a post is well written it gets a star from me.

You know its possible for people to star themselves? Stars tell you nothing unless there is loads on one post, and even then it is often just partisan games... I star what I like and ignore the rest.

Now thats cleared up, can we please get back on topic? Everyone? Please?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by GrimTroll
 


Many apologies for this off topic post but I wanted to clarify. I am not pouting because I wasn't getting any stars (
) because I was getting them. It was the post above mine I was talking about.

I am also aware of the fact you cannot help your post getting a star even after it was removed. How could that be your fault- you can't star your own posts. My issue was what CS said- tag team trolling. Threads with controversial subject matter dealing with religion, sexuality, and free speech almost always turn out like this so as soon as I noticed it took that turn, I decided to leave the pointless discussion. I have gotten in trouble enough lately and have been trying to stay out of threads that get too heated. My comment was not directed towards anyone.


Sensitive much?
Please, I am not going to stop replying to a thread because my ego isn't being star-stroked. I was pointing out the group starring.

Anyways, that is all I have to say on this topic derailment. I'm not remotely upset and wasn't singling anyone out.


[edit on 6/27/2008 by AshleyD]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Right. I'll take it up from here if you don't mind. I believe this is extremely relevant for the discussion.

Throughout the thread I have repeatedly asked why them being offended by me should matter more than me being offended by them.

Here, here, here, and particulary here.

I have yet to receive a single response...
Not one!




top topics



 
3
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join