Slashdot Mirror
Federal Anti-Obscenity Program Comes Up Limp
kotj.mf writes "The New York Times reports that the Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group, has yet to result a single prosecution for obscenity, despite having generated more than 67,000 citizen complaints. The group, better known for its campaign to have Cosmopolitan removed from supermarket checkout stands, is pushing the Justice Department to more aggressively pursue cases against what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.'"
Great idea, it is about time they did something about those religions spreading filth.
oh.. wait.
Can someone explain how the federal government can fund a program whose sole purpose is clearly in violation of the first amendment?
The right-wing religious nuts can do whatever they want with their own money, but this seems like a phenomenal waste of my tax money.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
At first glance, my brain interpreted this headline as "Federal Anti-Obesity Program..." Whew! For a second there I thought that the government was going to come after us for eating too many twinkies during those late night coding sessions.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
So I'll just pick one tiny quote: Who have to be blind, deaf eunuchs. Because that's the only way to be sure. Dammit, I have to add one thing: Ok... what exactly is wrong with consenting adults??? How can you get any more puritan than that? Is he really that much out of touch with reality that he can even begin to think that there's anything wrong with that and furthermore, that HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT???
Ahemm... sorry, but the degree of mental retardation needed to keep such views in today's society keeps astounding me.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
...did these people end up getting funding from the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? They are a religious organization, and they are running a religious campaign under a general header of "anti-obscenity." How?
"I do have a cause however: obscenity. I'm for it."
This sort of thing just makes religious conservatives seem like they want to make everyone else moral using force, when most evangelical Christians want to spread the Good News to the unfaithful and have them willingly become moral (by the conservative Christian definition).
I am officially gone from
Quite frankly I find the whole idea these people are out there wasting tax dollars obscene. Shall we all get together and file a complaint against THEM?
To all the religious nutjobs out there I have one thing to say:
You were shoved headfirst through someone's vagina. Why are you acting so dignified? (source: xkcd)
But seriously, think of it this way.
On TV, children will see many thousands of simulated murders long before they're old enough to buy porn. If they copy what they see on TV, it means death for someone and jail for the kids.
It is illegal for children to see even just one simulated sex act before they're of age. If they do manage to get their hands on some and copy what they see, the worst thing that can happen is that they pick up a couple STD's and have a kid.
Now, which of these things have the bible thumpers made their top priority?
Obsenity is defined as something that "lacks artistic merit, depicts certain conduct in a patently offensive manner and violates contemporary community standards"
67000 complaints indicate the prevalence of such material. Could't it be because there is a real demand? I believe this website succeeds only in reporting material that is offensive to a small subset of the population, that try to force its beliefs on the rest of the country.
Look: the SOB said, BEFORE HE WAS EVEN ELECTED THE FIRST TIME, "what this country needs is a little less free speech."
He said this. Openly, in response to attack ads against him. He told everyone where he stood before he even had the chance to govern.
And then these IDIOTS elected him.
Twice.
So whose fault is it that the Constitution is a forgotten document? Our schools are failing us - have been for years. And that ain't shrub's fault. I cannot stand the guy - I personally think he is a traitor to the US Constitution. But it's not like no one knew where he stood. The fact he could even have been elected is a sign of deeper illness in our nation, and we serve no good by blaming everything upon the latest symptom of this disease.
Long back, people from England emigrated to Australia &
the USA. All the convicts were sent to Australia. All the
religious kooks were sent to the USA.
Most Australians are thankful for this luck of fate.
maybe all the christian mothers were too posh to push ;)
"Addiction is an ugly word, but it is a reality. And what are the results of TV addiction? Deterioration. Deterioration of family togetherness, closeness. Deterioration of mind and spirit. We've lost the art of family conversation. We don't read. Our children are not stimulated to read. They are missing the great treasures, the literature of the ages. But the worst result of the addiction is a lack of interest in God and the Scriptures. Divine love as well as human love is leaving the home of the family addicted to television."
u es/supmktmags.htm/ - on a page that describes what to do on "Turn off TV day" (which they have set to be Valentines day), and one of the suggestions next to "take a stroll in the park" and "help out at a soupkitchen", is "And, most appropriately, take time to write to the broadcasters and advertisers to let them know how you feel about offensive programming."
-- Father Morton A. Hill, S.J., founder of Morality in Media
(Twin Circle, 1981)
So unless you're interested in God and the Scriptures they will probably be against whatever TV has to offer - regardless of the type of the show.
Quote can be found here: http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?mediaIss
Frightening on many levels, one being that the government gave them money for it.
What's the problem with sex among consentual adults?
It's the non-consentual sex they should be worried about.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
@Cordath: "Now, which of these things" (TV violence or porn) "have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"
Well, both, actually. Violence on over-the-air TV has been a major target of religious organizations since the medium graduated from geekdom to mainstream.
People (religious or not) who are offended by violence, public displays of sexuality, and non-normative language have always attempted to drive such behavior out of the public eye and into "red light districts" and alternate media.
Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism. :-)
Puritanism (v.): The overwhelming fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time.
Really, just because they feel guilty over any pleasure (because we were bad and got kicked out of the garden of eden so we don't deserve them in the eyes of god or something like that) doesn't mean that every pleasure should be struck from acceptable social behavior especially when they really are a vocal minority.
Shh.
That found the title to be a bit amusing.
We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
mim@moralityinmedia.org there, guys. Have fun :)
Show this to your friends and family that don't know what a real hacker is
I can't help wonder what kind of porn the 67000 people are surfing for.
I hate "..sexual material involving consenting adults.'" Now, if only the internet would be be filled with for "sexual material involving none-consenting adults.'"
STDK
If these people don't like porn then why are they so aware of the amount of it out there - they are obviously seeking it out! Makes me wonder if they are also mail overing hard core porn DVDs so that they can be outraged by those also (or at least outraged that other people are having more uninhibited sex than they are).
Folks - if you don't like porn, then don't look at it.
Or maybe we should just ban your religion since some of us are fed up at they way it's ruining the country (trying to put fairy tales on the school science curriculum, control what other people may enjoy, etc).
- Go to the complaint submission site and submit a complaint.
- Put the url obscenitycrimes.org in the Report URL box.
- Under the "type of obscenity" check box, check "other" and place this text in the description box: "Obscene waste of my tax dollars and obscene violation of the first amendment
I know that it won't do anything, but it makes me feel a little better anyway.weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
Get a load of that - they are complaining about sexual material involving CONSENTING adults. So, 2 or more people have chosen to do something with their own FREE WILL, and done it, and they are allowing others to watch it by their FREE WILL.
Therefore the what this group is for is an assault against free will.
Read radical news here
Dumb-ass, morally righteous Christian assholes.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
on the streets, and end up prostituting themselves to survive, and these same groups are mum, or even encourage parents to get rid of their gay or transgendred child. Fucking hypocrites these self proclaimed "morality" groups are! >:(
... what it sees as 'a prime threat to society, the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.
... what? That particular horse left the barn decades ago, and it's not coming back.
What? Really, I mean
These people need to laid, and stop trying to force their pattern for living on everyone else.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The whole "federally funded" part is what's scary.
Why should these organizations be federally funded? I thought our constitution is clear on this.
Just like Bush wants to *deny* federal funding to stem cell research, obviously on religious grounds. But at least this is a grey area; federally funding religious organizations trying to ban "obscene" content is so wrong.
Oh, I just figured it out. It's so wrong that it overflowed the wrongness int and became right. Sigh.
Damn, misread the title. Although, maybe if I got enough people to petition, I could get one of those. But then all /. users would become expatriots of the United States, and I don't think Canada wants them either....
[I]n the Classifieds section, ... The latter ad points readers to a website where they can receive, without proof of age, access to "Adult Sex Ed" materials."
When a retired law enforcement agent, now a consultant for MIM, went to this website and clicked the word "Cunnilingus," he observed. . . a photo that "depicted a naked female lying on her back with her right leg lifted near her right breast as a male engaged in oral/vaginal sex upon her genitals"... Some may call that "Adult Sex Ed," but we call it "pornography." That's pornography made available at the family supermarket.
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
I hope respectable people behind this campaign will find ways to push forward their noble agenda.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.
They can use it to gain power, but that does not involve a personal buy-in.
The nature of deistic religion means that one is either a Fundamentalist or a hypocrite, and any squalling to the contrary may be regarded as a delusion or a lie.
"Now, which of these things have the bible thumpers made their top priority?"
Controlling sex gives social control of the tribe. Encouraging violence towards opponents expands tribal power. Never forget that we are dealing with the belief systems of desert tribesmen, no matter what the modern veneer. Judge them by their works, be they Taliban or Talibaptist.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
It's not just the anti-religious bigots that want to outlaw public evanglism. Well, maybe not outlaw, but definately prevent them from harassing.
I think we deserve a goverment grant to fight this non-consentual abstinence among the community! At the minimum community service sentences to those who continue this harmfull practice against innocent slashdotters!
Although I am willing to settle for that list of porn sites. Could they rank them so I don't waste too much time to get too the good stuff?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
... they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.
Sig
I, for one, was shoved ass-first through CowboyNeal's penis, insensitive clod!
we know they're not the wasps descended from the original puritans. Those wasps love their booze and raunchy sex.
we know they're not traditional catholics. They can be forgiven for cornholing that lady they barely knew.
we know they're not the black folks. They can just sing out the sin in church.
nope, none of those regular religious folks are responsible for this.
It's the snake bite christians. The people that believe if they pray enough to god, that the copperhead they're passing around their "church" won't kill them.
This type of "christianity" has been slowly spreading throughout the bible belt and into our metro areas. They are now mega churches.
They preach old testament garbage and slap the name jesus on top. They are not christians at all.
They are ignoring the teachings of jesus on a whole. Blessed are the poor and the sick. These people are elitist scumbags.
This morality in media organization wouldn't know morality if they stepped in it. They only know how to discriminate and persecute. They are filled with fear and hatred.
Any man who exerts his will on others is not fit to be called a man. For he is the one crippled by fear. He is the one who needs guidance the most.
This means that 99% of these christian preachers are just complete frauds. They only preach because they're trying to hide their own skeletons.
They're using their grammar skills there.
I seem to remember a small government lobbying group having the power to tell the country what to do in the 1920's on moral grounds. (prohibition) We see how that worked-out. Organized crime made a decent living off of it. The point is: it's never a good idea to give "moral" lobbying groups any power. It's a Pandora's Box.
The game.
While I'm not a supporter of the anti-obscenity crowd, the difference is fairly clear. There is no natural, overwhelmingly powerful drive to murder every hot girl that will let you.
Dogma Idiot Priority (DIP) "Morality in Media, a conservative religious group" seeks to combat consenting adult recreation, while damning children to the pedophiles on the internet and in public. Hell, it looks like they should start by trying to close down places of dancing and mixed sex social environments/events.
... while assenting by silence (obscene lip-service [AKA: virtual BJ]) genocide, famine, child pornography, spouse abuse, slavery, criminal wars, pollution, corruption in government ... for their personal (not godly) interest on earth.
... as their most trusted and important tools for their common good and the oppression of humanity.
...) providing the care of a family and good educations for all." Opposing abortion is 180degrees out from taking responsibility for the children alive today.
... societies) Christian popes/bishops, Baptist ministers, Hebrew Rabies, Islam Imams, and/or any other pseudo-religious/political person to pontificate/fatwa about the wrongs of abortions and the evils of other nations/religions, and then not actively support and enforce laws in their/other nations around the world to end starvation, slavery, pollution, genocide ... is the greatest EVIL INCARNATE against children (born and aborted) and humanity, for all THEIR EVILS, DAMN THEM TO HELL!
... to me, because they preach then breach the public's, Citizens', Humanity's trust. Then by inaction/proxy cause the same amount of suffering, cruelty, death, and mass-murder as any Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon ... mass-murders and traitors.
DIP Morality in Media, a conservative religious/mythology group seeks to combat consenting adult recreation, while damning children to semi-illiteracy, oppressed dogma believing, poor/diseased health street urchins, and exploitable cheap labor for US & EU citizens of recognizable value. If you don't have what it takes to instill irrational fear into poorly educated people and/or at least an ability to legally extort from the poor and middle class citizens to make a living; well then, you need to be more subservient to the people that are of value to the new world order.
DIP Morality in Media, a conservative religious/mythology group seeks to combat abortionist, freewill, free-speech, human-rights
Oh; NOW I SEE, all pseudo-religious/mythology groups are like BinLaden's terrorist groups with cruelty, suffering, injustice, evil
I have always said; "I would respect mythology/religion groups/members more than null/zero... if they would (legally binding) sign/line up to adopt and raise as their own, all abandoned children on the street and in all orphanages globally (young and old, healthy and sick, Moslem or Jew,
For ("the prime threats" to US, EU,
MF/FF/Gay/Incest/Donkey, though morally questionable/objectionable for many adults, ain't the problem. All of today's religious & political intercourse for exploiting and oppressing public security and welfare is the real obscenity and pornography promoted by religion and governments globally.
Almost all religious leaders, politicians, and their families are more ugly and repugnant than Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Caesar
I do not write this way to flame/troll/offend, but to intensely express what I see (objectively or subjectively, you choose) as the facts, which strongly indicate the origins of great crimes against humanity. Everything I write like this is "Open Content".
FINAL WORD: GO TO HELL ALL YOU EVIL LYING OFFSPRING OF DEMONIC BITCHES!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Well said mate - wish I had mod points
Nope.
You see, the funny thing about idiocy, we idiots are resilient and determined and forgiving. Shoot, like the guy with a wet mop, we've been hard at work with the plunger after the prior Administration clogged up the toilet with foreign threats, which should have been flushed on his watch. But I guess he was in such a hurry, he even forgot to pull up his pants on his way to the intern.
Thanks. I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your janitor on your way out. Here's a mint for you.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
It's been around since the original sin, and it's not going anywhere. If I read their site right they want to clean up media a bit, which may not be such a bad thing. It may make for more substance, and less sensationalism.
Having said that, what will all those self-righteous pricks do when we ALL walk on water?
Should we even give them time time of day here?
Hope is the currency of fools
"and violates contemporary community standards."
That is the current problem of the society. There is no community and there are no standards.
Indeed, "The time is out of joint".
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
What is really interesting about the religious fundamentalists is that they want to wind the clock back to sometime around 2 BCE.
Of course there was illicit sex going on back then, but because the printing press hadn't yet been invented it was a real bitch to to flip book style porn on stone tablets.
Speak for yourself.
-Jack
I think the most obscene thing of all is all the Bush on the interwebs. I can't even go to a news site without seeing a fucking Bush. I think the series of tubes is clearly becoming stretched beyond capacity, you cold almost say erect, by all of the Bush flowing through them. One more Bush sighting, and who knows what the orgasmic consequences may be. The entire system could explode, become limp and unable to perform when needed if over-stimulated by one more Bush. At least that's what I heard from my friend Katrina.
Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
If you do one good thing in 140 years, does that make you a good person?
The devils greatest lie is not to convince us there is no God but to convince us that the evil we do is Gods will.
Yes, and lieing about a blowjob is just like lieing about going to war. We know this is true because every time a president gets a blowjob, it makes Mr. Biggelsworth angry. And when Mr. Biggelsworth gets angry, PEOPLE DIE!
Present-day realities of the U.S. government:
Bush does not run the U.S. government. He is only a figurehead provided by people who want corruption. There is no evidence he has ever been mentally engaged enough to understand the workings of government.
The word "conservative" is only a word used by people like Karl Rove ("Bush's Brain") to get political support. Those who call themselves conservative aren't conservative except towards someone else's corruption.
Bush is an alcoholic (possibly a dry alcoholic), from a family of alcoholics. His grandfather was a violent alcoholic. Expect lies and violence from powerful alcoholics.
Alcoholics aren't religious. The pretense of religion is only a way of getting elected. Those who want corruption will say or do anything to get elected. They try to find and exploit the weaknesses of those who are less educated and less informed.
Saddam Hussein would not restrict the flow of oil, so the other powers could not get control over the price of oil. The invasion of Iraq was to restrict the flow of oil so that prices would rise. This benefited oil company investors like Cheney and Bush and their associates, like "Prince" Bandar, the Saudi with whom G.W. Bush has been photographed holding hands, as he has with other Saudis.
People from rich families often arrive at the conclusion that it is their right to kill other people to make money. They don't do the killing themselves, of course, but get others to do it.
For more information, see this article: George W. Bush comedy and tragedy.
I read "anti-obesity" and thought "Let's see what failing plan the Americans will try this time.".
But no... Just keep on drinking cola and eat tons of fries! You probably have way too much stomach to be able to reach your genitals soon, which will solve this obscenity "problem"...
Which is why this group is against web pornography. Any kid with an internet connection can click OK and absolve the website of any blame for showing porn to minors. Not that kids never got their hands on Playboy in the past, but it is easier for people to find what they want now, whatever it is that they want.
Also, you're looking at this the wrong way. From the bible thumper perspective, a vast amount of porn depicts acts that could in no way bring new life into this world. They want people having lots of kids, that's why they come out so strongly against birth control. The people who listen to them are likely to raise the lots of kids they have according to those same morals. This is a multigenerational plan to eventually rule the world through controlling everyone. Why else would we have seen communism as a plague on mankind? It actively worked against religion.
And I was a cesarean section. No headfirst through the vagina for me.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
You should cite your sources. This is something Alan Watts said many times in many ways. You also might want to provide one of the full quotations, since they're directly relevant to this discussion. For example, in 1968 he said that
Source
> Federally funded anti-Web pornography campaign run by Morality in Media, a conservative religious group
So... they use pornography to fight the Web?
"How can a republic be the best form of government if the universe, heaven, and hell are a monarchy?"
/Just sayin.
Well, it probably helps that the ruler of heaven is perfect.
Anti-pornography.
Limp.
Oh, the fun.
Also, I wonder if this guy is any relation to the nutjob Peters Brothers, whose 30 year campaign against satanism in rock and roll has yielded similar results to 'Morality in Media,' ie. zero.
You were shoved headfirst through someone's vagina. Why are you acting so dignified?
I was born by Caesarean section, you insensitive clod!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Prior to filing a lawsuit, members of Morality in Media were required to pass a Cosmopolitan quiz, "Am I an Adequate Lover?" None were successful.
Have gnu, will travel.
http://obscenitycrimes.org/
submit a complaint about that particular website.
direct quote from that website: "It is the job of law enforcement agents to police the Internet."
I find that obscene.
They're using their grammar skills there.
Thanks for the interesting link.
Okay. I'll grant that the Morality in Media's ObscenityCrimes program is an idiotic waste of money. (First, the Internet is a global medium; second, law enforcement already has its hands full going after the stuff which really is harmful—child pornography.)
But I can't let this reply stand unchallenged...
Implied, maybe—although I still suspect your "thousands" number is a wild exaggeration. Television (and movies) do this frequently.
But simulated? Hardly. Very rarely do you see depictions of murders in the same manner as which pornography depicts sex... graphically, up-close, from start to finish. The best example that springs to mind was the scene towards the end of Saving Private Ryan when the German soldier killed the American soldier by slowly forcing a knife into his abdomen. (That particular scene was graphic and disturbing enough that when I saw it in the theaters, a lot of the movie audience squirmed in discomfort.)
Besides, even if your assertion were true, all it would mean is that there are a lot of bad parents out there who don't bother to use the V-chip settings on their TVs. Just because some children are subjected to things they really shouldn't be doesn't mean that it's ok for all children to get the same treatment.
The argument isn't that children who see murder will outright copy it (that is, commit murder); the argument is that exposing a child to simulated violence (particularly graphic violence) during certain points of the brain development process can have adverse affects at later stages of the development process, and in adulthood. Although groups such as Morality in Media love to distort reports of the (ongoing) research in this area to further their own agenda, this is an ongoing area of legitimate scientific research.
Your ignorant dismissal of the "worst" effects is astounding.
Sexualizing children at an early age is outright abuse, and it is profoundly harmful. (By "sexualizing children", I mean graphic pornography, or direct sexual contact; not "birds and bees" discussions.) There's no lack of evidence of this. Even worse, the damage spreads like an infectious disease: children abused in this manner tend to act out what they have seen and experienced with other children, and grow up to become abusers themselves. Recidivism rates for adults who sexually abuse children is astoundingly high—because their brains were damaged by sexual abuse during their own development, and are now "hardwired" (compulsed) to repeat this behavior.
Children need to be protected from over overt sexual material, sexualization, and graphic violence before their brains have developed to the point where they can handle such material without long-term consequences. But children also need frank, clinical, information information about reproduction and other sexual issues—before, during, and after puberty. In objecting to the latter, groups such as Morality in Media deserve our scorn and contempt, because they are doing children a disservice.
But there's a difference between scorn and bigotry. That you are willing to trivialize harm to children because doing otherwise might provide some wind to the sails of "religious nutjobs" and "bible thumpers" (to use your words) says volumes about the type of person you are.
Speaking as a non-Christian, non-bible-thumper... you should be ashamed.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
You don't need a source. Granting that there is a separation of church and state, there is basically no legal basis for the need of such a law to exist. That being said, however, think to all the parents that have come up in arms about prayer in school. Think about the legislation, either on the national or state level that has removed SPONSORED prayer from schools. That is pretty much what you are talking about (even though there was never a law nor a standard that required prayer in school to begin with). In fact, in texas right now, there is a couple suing a the state for allowing a moment of silence after the Pledge, because they say that a moment of silence actually means "go pray"
environments/events... religious/mythology... poor/diseased... and/or... religious/mythology... pseudo-religious/mythology... mythology/religion... groups/members... null/zero... sign/line... popes/bishops... and/or... pseudo-religious/political... pontificate/fatwa... nations/religions... their/other... MF/FF/Gay/Incest/Donkey... questionable/objectionable... inaction/proxy... flame/troll/offend...
Is someone paying you by the foward-slash?
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
How can a republic be the best form of government if the universe, heaven, and hell are a monarchy? Not that I agree with the sentiment, but the monarchs of heaven and hell aren't supposed to be human; They get to be in charge because they are uniquely suited to the jobs. Until a bona fide super-human turns up, I'll stick to a republic being the best idea.
They can use it to gain power, but that does not involve a personal buy-in.
I think you just proved the argument made in some other comments, that anti-religious bigots are just are bad as religious fundamentalists.
Your statement deliberately misuses language (the use of the word "monarchy") to mislead. What sort of tortured logic could possibly lead to the conclusion that relations between human beings (all fallible, sinful and fundamentally equal), should follow the same model as relations between human beings and God (fundamentally greater and qualitatively different)?
Christian doctrines, such as original sin, are a very strong argument for democracy. This is why there are very old traditions of Christian egalitarianism. Of course they were not dominant, because they were suppressed, but they existed and kept recurring.
I agree, we damn ourselves, or we save our soul, but god does not decide for US.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I bought the rights to /... (whoops, sorry about the ... stutter) under the Brooklyn bridge on the Manhattan side.
/. explained to me that I could not own something the belonged to everyone. I decided, to not put it to a test in court.
...).
Anyway the smart folks here at
Yes, it is horrible the way I think in some ways (too much, too many
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Weep salt tears crocodilian;
All life is sacred (save, of course,
An enemy civilian). I think it's obvious which they would choose. Whichever is most convenient and beneficial to them, completely ignoring their religion.
Or hell, whichever is more beneficial to higher-ups of the same religion, because most people are fucking sheep and will just go along with whatever they're told.
This statement is forty-five characters long.
I wonder if I can get that xkcd cartoon printed into a t-shirt ;D
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Someone who believes the universe is a divine monarchy can never honestly embrace secular democracy.
I respectfully disagree. There is a logically consistent course to desire to submit to the authority of God but to shy from submitting to the authority of other men.
Your quote is only true if we can know 100% the mind of God and act as he wills. Since we cannot, and since men are fallible, it makes sense not to concentrate too much power in the hands of people who, according to the Bible, are all sinners. Thus, to ensure that men have the freedom to pursue a righteous course not impeded by the will of a tyrant, a society with maximized freedom and minimized secular authority is essential.
In other words, because we don't know the mind of God, we can't trust any societal institution that places limits on the freedoms of people to adhere to their own moral codes unless their codes demand the restrictions of the freedoms of others or do universally recognized harm (e.g. murder).
Since we cannot trust the leadership of men who claim to be chosen by God if we cannot verify his words ourselves, democracy is the best course.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
jesus christ was about love and tolerance
the spirit in which you act is not the same as jesus christ's message
if anything, it in is in the same spirit of the jews and romans who condemned jesus christ to death
if jesus christ rises again, it is conservative christians who will be the first to condemn him
because conservative christians have a message which is the exact opposite of the message of jesus christ
there are in this world good christians
and they are all moderates and liberals
and they are more in the good stead of the message of jesus christ than you are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Every time I criticize middle-eastern theocracies, some idiot (ok, MANY idiots) jump in screaming about how "that's their culture", and "we have no right to criticize".
I have seen a lot of rhetoric about people doing this, but I've never actually seen it. I've always considered it a conservative urban legend. Do you have any examples of people doing this where you're pretty sure that they're serious?
In other words, [citation needed].
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What's this, Be Easy On Me day? OK, I'll limit it to just one. If you want more, I got a folder full...
Child Evangelism Fellowship of San Fernando Valley v. Los Angeles Unified School District
That's kind of weird (as are all conservatives), but I'd like clarification on their objection. Are they more interested in having non-concentual sex on the internet, or more non-adult sexual content?
Seeing how conservatives are getting imprisoned all over the nation for rape and pederasty, it's not too clear on what their positions are. Maybe we should take it literally (especially since their actions seem to support it): perhaps conservatives object to sex involving consenting adults, and want to see far more everything else.
the growth on the Internet of sexual material involving consenting adults.' I can breathe easy, then, as I'm only into pornography involving rape.
67000 complaints indicate the prevalence of such material. Could't it be because there is a real demand?
Not necessarily. All it implies is that >=1 person has made =67,000 complaints.
The actual number of people bothered by such a thing could be tiny or huge.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
What sort of tortured logic could possibly lead to the conclusion that relations between human beings (all fallible, sinful and fundamentally equal), should follow the same model as relations between human beings and God (fundamentally greater and qualitatively different)?
They should to some extent. In order for people to be "good" they must understand what "good" means. In other words, our notion of morality must be in alignment with God's morality, for otherwise we can only please God by accident, which conflicts with having choice. But, can we trust God?
(By "sexualizing children", I mean graphic pornography, or direct sexual contact; not "birds and bees" discussions.) There's no lack of evidence of this.
Really? Let's see some.
free access to school facilities != praying try again
I said: "Just like anti-religious bigots try to outlaw public worship and evangelism."
Afecks said: "That's never happened."
I said: "Child Evangelism Fellowship of San Fernando Valley v. Los Angeles Unified School District"
Afecks said: "free access to school facilities != praying"
I say: "Praying != public worship and evangelism"
I think I proved my point - anti-religious bigots do indeed try to outlaw public worship and evangelism.
If you suddenly want to change the topic to outlawing private prayer, feel free. It would make for a very unenforceable law, though, and it's certainly not what I claimed.
morari, your point is moot on this particular point. The reply was made to the previous post that said there has not been a law passes or attempt, (or some such) to outlaw prayer, by a non religious, etc group. I am not contended the fact that the moment of silence probably was meant to be a time for prayer; however there is a decent argument that says that is more of a time for silent reflection, which a person can take to mean whatever they want I suppose. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that state supported prayer in school or an any public place is in line with spirit of the Constitution.
That being said and basically off topic, I find your stab at "war heroes" offensive, we do not chose our wars, we only fight the ones our politicians tell us to. I have had friends die in combat and I have seen things you only dream of when you play video games. Whether you agree with the war in the middle east or not (which many in the military do not, at least at this present stage) slandering those that fight is uncalled for. That being said, me and my comrades do do what we do so that you have the freedom to debase us.
Sure. The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse is a good place to start. Hell, even less specialized journals like the American Journal of Psychiatry routinely publish papers along these lines. There are also many books on this subject; search for "child sexual abuse" on Amazon.com to start. (But skip books that don't have an endnotes/bibliography section; you need that to chase references through the literature.)
Again, don't confuse the desire to keep children ignorant of sexuality and biology (e.g., protesting sex ed classes that contain information about STDs and contraceptive technology) with the desire to protect children from things they simply aren't, developmentally-speaking, ready for (e.g., making sure you took the Gangbang Girls #18 disc out of the DVD player and locked it [back] up before your 8-year-old daughter and her friends have their sleepover).
Groups like Morality in Media are offensive because they encourage the "keep children ignorant about biology" behavior. It's natural to want to want to disagree with them. But if you let that convince you that there's nothing wrong with your 8-year-old daughter watching hardcore porn, then you're a bad person (not to mention a bad parent).
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
That's right, keep rationalizing, defending, excusing and otherwise pretending the problem isn't there. You're serving as fine example of just the sort of illness I was talking about...
Reporter: Isn't that freedom of speech?
Shrub: Then we need a little less free speech...
I saw the comment made. I heard it. Maybe I'm paraphrasing, but this was exactly the context.
Ben Franklin was right: you stupid fuckers will get exactly the government you deserve.
Copyright protections explicitly do not apply to parody.
Try actually reading the law before posting about this again... or heck, just go rent "Larry Flynt for President."
You're completely wrong. The media does not ignore ANYTHING - the media plays an active role in sustaining the channels of control.
Duh. If they didn't, they'd become irrelevant - and thus powerless.
Watch the straw pole speeches today? Notice anything? Like... the "host" pimping every republican candidate except one? Mocking the most popular voice there?
Ron Paul is not ignored on mainstream media by accident. He's not there because even bad publicity can be good publicity, and no one knows this better than those in control of the channels of communication.
Who gets to define 'sexual abuse,' though? Morality In Media? The specific problem I have with your post is that it equates physical abuse with letting your kid get a peek at Janet Jackson's nipple. (If there's some other way to interpret "I mean graphic pornography, or direct sexual contact", it escaped me.)
The absolute reality is simple: no one, anywhere, can point to valid scientific evidence that exposure of a child to a given form of media causes quantifiable psychological harm. Human beings are not as programmable as that. If your 8-year-old accidentally sees Gangbang Girls #18, she'll wrinkle her nose and ask you, as her parent, what the heck is up with that stuff. Your reaction to her question is where any potential for psychological harm lies. (You are aware that panicked exclamations of "OMG little Bobbie saw a naked person!11!!!" are pretty much a uniquely-American phenomenon, right?)
Any attempt to limit the First Amendment's scope should require the highest standard of evidence of imminent harm to society. It isn't reasonable to use studies about genuine child sexual abuse, which involves everything from physical injury to gross violations of trust, to push an anti-pornography agenda. When you equate these things, you're helping groups like Morality in Media to pretend that they're in possession of that "high standard of evidence." That wouldn't be such a problem if our legislators weren't so damned eager to believe them.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
How can a republic be the best form of government if the universe, heaven, and hell are a monarchy?
Because humans are fallible, God - if you believe in Him - is not.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Focus, Pinky, focus! Your "stop someone from praying" rabbit trail is off in the weeds. Here's that thread again:
Now, as to your response: The court ruling I cited evaluated the validity of an executive branch regulation that prescribed "punitive fees" for the use of taxpayer funded facilities (in this case, public schools) by religious groups that were made available to other non-profit groups free of charge. This regulation, under the Chevron legal doctrine or Chevron deference (oh, go look it up!) is a "law" per Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Thus, I cited an instance of a recent law (eventually struck unconstitutional under the 1st amendment) that attempted to outlaw public worship and evangelism (in this case, in a public facility).
i agree with you 100% in one respect: it doesn't matter what he actually said or did, or who he actually was. hell, he didn't even have to exist. the point is simply that this was a man who spoke of love and tolerance, or the legend is that such a man he was. doesn't matter. what matters is that if this ideal is to be elevated to the status of "mascot", to use your language, i don't understand why you would have a problem with that. are you saying there is another "mascot" we need? or that we need no "mascot" at all? both choices seem inferior to elevating the current legend to universal awe and inspiration
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I think a few million South Koreans would disagree with that.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Ah, perhaps I was too loose with words then. Our freedom, as in Americans. It may seem cold but I don't care too much about the rest of the world when our own country could quickly and easily be improved if we weed out the bullshit which is and has been holding it back.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Thank Lucifer, I'm a conservative Satanist and get to live a perfect life.
Nazi Germany was not about to cross the Atlantic with landing ships, if you want to go that far.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Well, you seem to be technical right. But, I'd say your example falls very sharply into the "public is not always public" issue. I can't march into a public school classroom at any time to do whatever would otherwise be legal. Anything not officially sanctioned, and funded, by the government needs fees to pay employees to maintain the property outside of the expected norm.
Now, perhaps the "right thing" is to increase taxes instead of requiring every non-school function to pay for usage of the school. I think that might be the right idea, including for things like "public" sports teams.
Certainly, there shouldn't be punitive damages against religious organizations for trying to use a public space (and without further information, the fact that the religious organization covers the same material as an existing school organization isn't relevant--one likely couldn't truck in and use the public school to run a secondary football team, either, without paying for things like insurance). And I agree, that there have been instances were "anti-religious bigots" (more like, anti religious-association bigots) have worked to prevent a religious group "tanting" a public institution with what they see as a religious bias. I can understand they're desire to not fund religious groups they're not associated with (and this can hold true for other Christian groups). But, perhaps this instance is a step too far, trying to claim that simple access to public land is unreasonable "funding".
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
You know, that makes about as much sense as saying that because my company is run like a dictatorship, I can't handle a democracy. It makes no sense.
Consindering that those South-Koreans where living under a dictatorship at the time (and would for another 30 years) I'm not sure they would.
Could you please snap out of your God induced coma? Why are you quoting a single sentence and ignoring the rest? Is that how you convince yourself that you make sense? I said that has never happened, then I qualified that with passing a law to stop prayer. This law doesn't stop anyone from praying. I'm sorry if English is too confusing for you but you have to respond to the argument I typed, not the one in your head that makes you correct.
:(
Please stop weaseling around and actually show me a law that has tried to stop someone from PRAYING. Stop arguing with me, there is nothing you can say that will morph that court decision into a new law about praying.
See, you don't just get to lump worship and evangelism together as if it was the same thing. I know that makes it harder for you to actually provide logic for your case but you need to come to grips with reality. There are plenty of times evangelism isn't acceptable such as when acting as a government official. There is this thing called the separation of church and state that has been working out real good for us.
Except for poor little you, getting persecuted so you can't spread your virus. Aww.
Sexualizing children at an early age is outright abuse, and it is profoundly harmful. (By "sexualizing children", I mean graphic pornography, or direct sexual contact; not "birds and bees" discussions.)
You do know how people used to (and in some cases still do) live, right? Entire families in one room. This means that kids were usually exposed directly to sex (of their parents) for their entire childhoods. And this was the case for most of humanity over our entire history, up until a couple of hundred years ago or so. Funnily enough, it's only really in the last couple of hundred years we've become so uptight about sex and children's proximity to it too. Claiming what humanity has done habitually for most of its existence is abuse is plain wrong.
You're a retard. You can't even tell the difference between when I'm talking to you and someone else.
I wanted to add a comment along the lines of "humans are falible, God is (supposedly) not," but then it would probably just start another loop of "but humans made up God, so God is falible," arguments.
"What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
Shove my tackle in their faces I would.
> Hebrew Rabies
The word is "Rabbis". Two b's, no e. If you're going to flame people, kindly do it correctly.
Ah, so you weren't claiming anything that *I* said never happened - you were talking about something totally unrelated? Sorry, that wasn't clear from your starting your post with "That never happened". Perhaps "Here's something that never happened" would have made it clear that you were changing the subject rather than disagreeing with my point.
No prob, have some (decaf) coffee and we'll switch to your topic.
You politely (ahem) requested that I "show [you] a law that has tried to stop someone from PRAYING". That wasn't as hard as I expected it to be. I don't pay much attention to those - I pray pretty much whenever I feel like it, verbally or silently, and don't plan to stop just because some law says otherwise (and never claimed to be "persecuted", either) - but I made a special effort to look up some cases for you. Here's the three most interesting to me - if not to you, feel free to do a little research yourself. ;-)
In Marsh v. Chambers (1983), a lower court injunction on a complaint by Rep. Earnest Chambers to outlaw the ceremonial opening invocation of the Nebraska Legislature by a taxpayer-paid chaplain due to the Establishment Clause was overturned by the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Establishment Clause and the selection of the first chaplain of the first Congress occurred the same week in 1789, so the intent of the Establishment clause (coupled with the 14th amendment) made the lower court's ruling inconsistent with hundreds of years of precedent. As far as I know, the chaplain still prays in spite of Rep. Chambers' efforts.
In Doe v. The Wilson County School System, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on behalf of other students to prohibit voluntary, student-led prayer outside of normal school hours on school grounds on the basis that other students might overhear (the "See You at the Pole" event). The event still take place (it's Sept 26 this year), so either the ACLU failed to outlaw prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, or the case is still pending.
The Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board decision concerned an ACLU proposal that opening a (closed) Tangipahoa Parish School Board meeting with an invocation, with which all board members were in agreement, was a violation of the Establishment Clause, and thus board members or their designates should be prohibited from prayer in that setting. Judge Ginger Berrigan so ordered, and for a while prayer was prohibited within the closed meetings (hard to tell if they complied ;-), but the subject decision overturned Judge Berrigan on the grounds that the plaintiff (the father of a child attending school in the district) lacked standing to sue because neither he nor his children could actually hear, read or otherwise know anything about the prayer and thus could not be offended. The school board subsequently voted 5-0 to continue with the invocation (can't tell if they actually pray, though - it's a closed meeting ;-).
Hope that helps to broaden your world. Hope we can be back to bashing Microsoft or SCO soon - Slashdot isn't a very neutral setting for a discussion on religion. :-D
Considering that their dictator was not Kim Il-Sung, and that they currently don't have a dictatorship at all (as opposed to that of Kim Jong-Il), I disagree. There's a difference between having an off-and-on military dictatorship under the guise of an elected presidency and having a Stalinist madman hold total control for decades on end.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Too late, I discovered while doing a little research for an acquaintance that the ACLU has filed suit to prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds - even before school.
Not to belabor the obvious, but... I wasn't talking to you. :-)
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Bullshit. Unless you have a specific case number to cite, I am inclined to think you've been listening to too much conservative talk radio.
The ACLU defends students' First Amendment rights, including the "free exercise" clause. Here is a quote direct from the ACLU web site:
My whoops, typo, and failure to catch a spelling error, is a mistake not a flame.
If that was not obvious from the content of my comment, then
"If you're going to flame people (implying bigotry), kindly reconsider your insult.
I cope very well with having my spelling corrected. I
like you, do not let overt or subtle insults slide.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"Rabies" was a whoops, not caught by my eyes, mind, or spell check.
"Rabbis" is the correct word. The ideas intentionally expressed in
my comments remains unchanged, and I think objective.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
They would have gotten bogged down in Russia just the same. And if they tried to withdraw, Russia would have turned on them. Furthermore, they had by that point failed to even get across the English Channel, and they didn't have the naval might to cross even the English Channel, to say nothing of the Atlantic. This is getting rather beside the point, but since North Korea was thought to be aligned with Stalin's Russia (the very same which had conquered the Baltic states and invaded Finland), I wouldn't second-guess the decision to defend Korea.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
The desire to force your views on others stems from unquestioning belief, and unquestioning belief stems from said questions left unasked or ignored themselves.
Fundamentalists should be called fundamentalists not because their views are based on backward (fundamental) interpretation of religious texts, but because they are fundamentally insecure.
Does god exist? Am I wasting my precious and very limited time on earth with worship? Is my religion the wrong one?
Since questions create an uneasy feeling, they are suppressed with ignorance in the form of more and "harder" religion.
The problem is that it gets harder to suppress these questions if you are bombarded with images of people making choices different from yours 24/7. People who make different choices are the biggest cause of people questioning their own behavior and beliefs.
After all, if one person likes red and the other likes green, how can one decide which color is better?
But if everyone liked red and those who like green were persecuted as freaks and heretics, the choice would be so much easier to make.
I know the question of color preferrence is inherently subjective, but so is the question of the morality of, say, abortion, pornography or stem cell research.
By trying to eliminate people who make choices different from theirs, fundamentalists just try to put their minds at ease, to submerge into a state of complete ignorance where they cannot be held accountable for anything (since none of their choices are made autonomously, each and every one of them is based on religious scripture) and can just live along, reassured in the fact that by doing as they are dictated to, they will "win" (go to heaven).
Hence why the large masses of the world are becoming more and more backwards and radical while a small elite is becoming more and more enlightened. The process can be observed everywhere, from South Korea to Turkey and the US.
It was hardly a "off-and-on military dictatorship". From the Korean war until the the late 80s it was first class hard edged police state. That it was less bad than the North Korean equivalent, or that it ultimate became a democracy doesn't change the fact that the US wasn't fighting for freedom and democracy.
Actually it was multiple "hard edged police states", punctuated by popular uprisings and an occasional election. In any case, it still seems to favorably compare to North Korea--after all, South Korea was not part of an international movement bent on making everyone else adopt its form of government.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Not talk radio (I'm more of an editorial person, and read Ted Rall to William F. Buckley, and everyone in between), but I do Internet searches. ;-) I'm also not anti-ACLU - they do a lot of good work in many areas, as my political leanings tend toward Libertarian. Like every good organization, however, I feel they sometimes get carried away in their enthusiasm.
The case reference is Doe v. The Wilson County School System, and you can download an image of the complaint and associated exhibits at http://www.aclu-tn.org/currentdocket.htm#religious freedom/. Note that this is an ACLU website, so I'm fairly certain it's not tainted. The lawsuit contains a wealth of allegations, which may or may not be true (I don't live in Wilson county), but it's the requested Injunctive Relief sought by the ACLU that caught my eye and supports my assertion.
The legal documents themselves are images, so I'll retype the key paragraph and add emphasis. Please excuse the inevitable typos, and I encourage you to verify with the ACLU's original image:
111. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and, in due course, a permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which enjoins Defendants, their successors, employees and agents, from permitting, authorizing, encouraging, and acquiescing in delivering of: 1) "See You at the Pole", 2) Praying Parents activities, 3) the "National Day of Prayer", 4) Christian themes and songs at the Christmas program, 5) Classroom prayers.
I would certainly interpret an injunction requiring that school officials not permit "See You at the Pole" as prohibiting voluntary student-led prayer before school. (The lawsuit itself alleges, among other things, that the school permitted SYatP to be advertised during school to the same extent that secular events were advertised, and that this violates the Establishment Clause; and that students wearing "I Prayed" stickers at school constituted harassment of other students. I disagree with those positions, although some of the other actions alleged by the ACLU I would consider potential violations if true. The proposed remedy, that is, requiring the school to be actively hostile to voluntary student-led prayer on school grounds outside of school hours, is overreaching IMHO.)
Here are a few other random references on various websites / blogs, to give you a flavor of the position of both sides; feel free to search on your own terms. As far as I know, the case has not been adjudicated yet, so both pro and anti positions are just allegations at this point, and I don't claim to know which are true and which are (ahem) less true. My point is limited to the ACLU's brief paragraph 111, and it's request that SYatP be prohibited at Wilson County schools.
I appreciate the ACLU quote, by the way, and the relative lack
You seem to have trouble staying with a topic. I made a statement about topic A. You demanded references, and I provided them. Instead of attempting to refute them, you insist you were really talking about topic B. I eventually provided some evidence related to that in good faith, even though it's unrelated to the my statement that started this sub-thread. Instead of refuting them, you switched to arguing about typos.
OK, I apologize to Anonymous Coward for calling him by the name of someone whose "debating skills" consist of calling people names. See you at the pole! ;-)
I appreciate the reference material - I had a feeling you were talking about Doe v. Wilson County.
:)
However, the complaint is against school officials and ONLY seeks to restrict the actions of school officials. Nowhere in the complaint could anything be construed as seeking to "prohibit voluntary student prayer anywhere, anytime on public school grounds." These are specific events the plaintiffs are seeking to stop the school's involvement with, as far as "permitting" goes, that means the school cannot simply turn a blind eye when other parents or teachers use the school and its resources to promote these religious events. There's a big difference between simple voluntary student prayer and an organized event like "See You at the Pole."
You may not agree with the ACLU in this case, but you're not going to win any converts by misrepresenting their position in this way.
BTW, all three links at the bottom of your post are dead. Have a nice day!
- Neal
Ahhh... only on Slashdot do we see an insolent reply demanding data, and then when data is provided, the poster conveniently ignores it and continues to stubbornly cling to their own viewpoint.
By all means, be my guest. You go right on and believe that there's nothing wrong with exposing prepubescent children to violent, graphic pornography; that it couldn't possibly affect them in any way. Don't let reality stop you.
Ah, so you're completely ignorant of Constitutional law, too. This just gets more and more entertaining. (For the record, SCOTUS almost always applies the strict scrutiny test to First Amendment challenges.)
The fuck I am. I was trained as a scientist; I base my decisions on conclusions what the underlying data support, not on what will provide me the childish satisfaction of pissing off groups with which I might harbor a grudge.
15-year-old Billy sees Janet Jackson's [fake] boob during the Superbowl commercial? Who cares; he's more than old enough to handle that. (Hell, at 15, he's probably got a few Playboys stuffed somewhere that I don't know about.)
10-year-old Jenny sees a few artistic nudes? Again, I don't care; if I'm a good parent, I should be prepared for a light "birds and bees" conversation at that point.
But if 8-year-old Billy or 8-year-old Jenny is exposed to graphic, overt sexual content (violent pornography, adults attempting to sexualize them), I do care, because the last time I checked the data, the consensus was that said exposure could be traumatizing.
Seeing a naked human body in a clinical or artistic setting is completely different than seeing (e.g.) a woman being penetrated violently in every orifice. Because Morality In Media equates both as equally harmful (a position not supported by any data of which I am aware), you react by equating both as equally harmless (also a position not supported by the data).
The great irony here is that you are exactly like Morality In Media: you both have viewpoints that are based on "faith" (and which ignore scientific data), and you are both willing to accept collateral damage in the battle against anyone who disagrees with you.
But, like I said, you go right on believing what you want. Don't let reality stop you.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
Ah, what beautiful logic. "The parents didn't have a separate bedroom.. therefore, in the evenings, they must have thrown down and had sex right in the middle of the floor, while the children gaped and watched! There's no other way it could possibly have happened!"
Non sequitur. Parents have been finding creative ways to have sex when the children aren't around for... well, probably most of human civilization.
I claim no such thing. Read my exchanges with Man On Pink Corner if you need further clarification.
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
Ah, now there's a content-filled post. Oh, wait, it contained absolutely zero additional content beyond random bluster and bloviation.
Ahhh... only on Slashdot do we see an insolent reply demanding data, and then when data is provided
What "data"? Posting the name of a journal doesn't even rise to the level of "anecdote," much less "data."
The fuck I am. I was trained as a scientist; I base my decisions on conclusions what the underlying data support, not on what will provide me the childish satisfaction of pissing off groups with which I might harbor a grudge.
Then why are you so reluctant to cite the data in question?
But if 8-year-old Billy or 8-year-old Jenny is exposed to graphic, overt sexual content (violent pornography, adults attempting to sexualize them), I do care, because the last time I checked the data, the consensus was that said exposure could be traumatizing.
There is no such 'consensus,' because there is no such 'data.' You're making stuff up again.
(Or are you one of those types for whom Ted Bundy's "Teh pr0n made me do it!" excuse holds water? If so, I have to warn you, my neighbor's dog has been making some very interesting points lately.)
Isn't that a little like saying that George Wallace's actions ONLY sought to restrict the action of police when he prohibited them from permitting Blacks to enter the University of Alabama? If the school administration is prohibited from "permitting... 1) "See You at the Pole", can you not see that SYatP is prohibited, and the students' right to pray is being violated?
I do not believe I have misrepresented their position in any way - I'm quoting their lawsuit directly here - but I suppose that when the law is settled, we'll see whether the students are permitted to pray or not.
Oh, that's what "Check those URLs!" means on the Post Comment page! :-) Mea culpa. But I suppose you can google as well as I can. ;-)
Thanks for the debate - it helped me settle my thoughts on some of the prayer issues I haven't spent time considering before.
I provided some pointers for you (and for anyone else reading this thread). Investigate it or dismiss it as you wish; I don't care anymore.
(If what you really mean is, "Why don't you spend hours of your time researching current data in this area and post a nice convenient summary here?", then the reason is simple: you've made it clear that your position is based on preconceived notions and bigotry and you don't intend to budge from it no matter what data I refer to or provide, so there's no point in wasting [any more of] my time.)
Your bank is insolvent.
Taking Money Back
If you quote me as writing something that I didn't write, I'm going to call you on it. I don't give a fuck if it's off-topic in your opinion or not. I've already refuted your rational arguments. The only thing left was to correct your mistake regarding the names. Don't try to bullshit me and say that you weren't even talking to me, when you obviously were. I don't like being lied to, even if it's about something as stupid as who you thought you were talking to.
I don't know how you can claim Afecks is a typo of Anonymous Coward. That's quite a stretch. Almost as big of a stretch as claiming that I'm switching topics when, as you can see, I've replied to all your idiotic comments. Whining about "name calling" is even sadder. You're so desperate to prove you are more superior than me that you will take any victory even if it's a non-issue such as "I'm more polite than you". Well congratulations, I don't give a fuck if you're nice. Are you trying to equate politeness with intelligence? That's rather pathetic. You're probably one of those assholes that think "dirty words" are a sign of a weak mind or some other poorly conceived slogan you fucks like to parrot.
What pole? The North Pole?
Marsh v. Chambers ruled that chaplains can't be paid by the state to pray. Nobody would have stopped him from doing it for free. It seems you are seriously confused about the difference between stopping public worship and refusing to sponsor public worship. Are you honestly suggesting that taxpayers pay for a religious ceremony? If that's true can it at least be the Church of Satan this time? You guys get all the good deals.
Doe v. The Wilson County School System is yet another case of not allowing the state to sponsor religious activities. I'm not sure if you noticed, but public schools are paid for by the state. That means that under the Constitution they can't sponsor any religious events. If the kids want to pray, nobody is stopping them but school officials at a publicly funded institution cannot endorse a religion. You are not acting on behalf of yourself in that capacity. Also, nobody is stopping the teachers from standing in the middle of the yard and praying to themselves. What they are stopping is teachers encouraging and endorsing the meetings! We've got Christian schools not run by the state where they allow that. For some reason that's just not good enough.
Doe v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board says yet again, that, acting as a state sponsored official, you cannot endorse another religion. You're all for protecting your rights but you don't give a shit about the rights of others. The separation of church and state is for our protection. It's emotionally and psychologically tormenting to not be a member of a religious group when you are surrounded by their followers and pressured to believe. Of course you don't care about anyone else's rights, just your right to brainwash children. If God is so fucking powerful and wonderful, why doesn't he fight his own battles instead of getting mindless little sheep to do it. Oh that's right, he doesn't exist.
I feel really sorry for you. You seem like such a smart person. For you to believe in this religious bullshit is such a waste of life. The saddest part is that when you die, you won't even get the chance to see how wrong you are.
Sorry, when I said "replied", I didn't mean "hit 'Reply to This' and spew hate-filled vitriol". I meant, "respond to my points with relevant counter-points". I enjoy the latter type of interchange, as I usually learn something; although, of course, your method may have something in it for you, and if so, I hope you found it.
Final thought - I'd humbly suggest some anger management counseling. I really do wish you the best. Cheers!
Sadder still is that you will - but, to quote you, "You guys get all the good deals." ;-)
You think living a lie and never finding out is better than finding out the truth?
I'm sorry... but where do you think people used to have sex instead of their houses? Parents have been starting to find creative ways to not expose children to sex only for the last couple of hundred years, like I said.
But if 8-year-old Billy or 8-year-old Jenny is exposed to graphic, overt sexual content (violent pornography, adults attempting to sexualize them), I do care, because the last time I checked the data, the consensus was that said exposure could be traumatizing.
Sorry, I know this is an old discussion, but I couldn't let this pass.
Violent pornography was not what we were talking about at all. I'm all for people doing what they do in their own homes, and having the freedom to do it, but this is not what is being talked about. Sex is what is being talked about, and equating sex to violence in any way is worrying.
I don't know what you are getting at with adults trying to "sexualize" kids, it seems like an Oprah title. It doesn't mean anything - kids know of sex to some degree or another all through their lives wherever they are.
No. Governors and officers of the law are bound to uphold the law and the constitution. Wallace was plainly breaking his oath. The difference here is that the school officials are permitting the school's promotion of religious events, not that they are permitting the events themselves.
"See You At the Pole" is protected, and ACLU defends that right - see the Joint Statement of Current Law on Religion in the Public Schools.
However, in the case of this complaint, the issue is not that students were praying voluntarily on school grounds. The plaintiffs objected to being "proselytized and intimidated...into subscribing and adopting the religious and Christian beliefs of the 'See You at the Pole' group." I think they're calling SYATP for what it is, a transparent way of skirting the prohibition on school-led prayers. These students and teachers aren't simply praying for their own sake - they want to be seen publicly praying by non-participants, which is something else entirely. It's a promotional event. It's proselytizing.
SYATP is a single, organized event. Even if the school were to prohibit SYATP (which won't happen), that in no way translates to "prohibiting voluntary student prayer anywhere, any time on school grounds." Students would still be free to pray as they pleased as long as it didn't interfere with scheduled school activity. They can still hold their events and promote them, as long as do it independently of the school.
You are over-broadening the impact of the requested action, see above. In doing so, you're claiming the ACLU takes a position which they do not in fact take.
Don't worry, they will be!