The First Admendment Wins Again...

Status
Not open for further replies.
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I hate to say it, but thank goodness.

If a family of loons half a mile away can force this nation to abrogate possibly the most important Amendment of our Constitution, then it really is over.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

I keep telling myself, mantra-like, that their comeuppance will come and the best way to avoid attention-whores is to not give them any attention.

Unfortunately, this is a rough as hell thing to ask of those military families who lost loved ones.
 
Cajungal

Cajungal

Staff member
Ah, well, it's good I suppose. Aren't there a lot of tornadoes in Kansas? How do they keep NOT destroying WBC HQ?
 
J

Jiarn

Of course not, he was media.

They will even - so I'm given to understand and I have no reason to doubt it - work alongside gay people very happily in the work place. If a gay person goes along to talk to them outside the church or if a gay person even turned up to the church to attend a service, they wouldn't humiliate them or be rude to them; they'd shake their hand and welcome them in.
Click to expand...
So basically, they're what we've known all along. Hipocrites that are doing the "religion" for the money.
 
M

makare

My first amendment prof was pretty mesmerized by the opinion, not the result, but the actual opinion. Sometimes The Court cracks me up.
 
C

Chibibar

But don't we have protection again liable? or psychological damage?
 
C

Chibibar

sixpackshaker said:
The protesters followed the law. The father never saw them in person. It was pretty much a bad suit.
Click to expand...
but didn't they continue to harass him via the internet (I thought I read that one after the funeral)
I am glad/sad that we are protected to be asses in public as long we follow the law, but we can hope when WBC gets violent, then they could be categorize as psychological terrorist? ;)
 
Norris

Norris

Chibibar said:
but didn't they continue to harass him via the internet (I thought I read that one after the funeral)
I am glad/sad that we are protected to be asses in public as long we follow the law, but we can hope when WBC gets violent, then they could be categorize as psychological terrorist? ;)
Click to expand...
Then they can try to sue for that. Suing them for the protest doesn't fly.
 
W

wikked

The gay thing isn't quite what people think it is. They don't HATE gays. They believe that god hates people who have "chosen" to be gay. They believe that being gay is a choice, and since the bible says a man laying with another man is an abomination, if they can get gay people into church they can "straighten" them out.
 
ThatGrinningIdiot!

ThatGrinningIdiot!

wikked said:
The gay thing isn't quite what people think it is. They don't HATE gays. They believe that god hates people who have "chosen" to be gay. They believe that being gay is a choice, and since the bible says a man laying with another man is an abomination, if they can get gay people into church they can "straighten" them out.
Click to expand...
I like the way you split hairs.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

Of course in the same passage, God says Shell-fish are an abomination. So, God Hates Shrimp.

But because Paul wanted to convert the Anatolians, Romans and Greeks, he said it was OK to eat the abominations. So what if Paul wanted to convert everybody?
 
Espy

Espy

sixpackshaker said:
But because Paul wanted to convert the Anatolians, Romans and Greeks, he said it was OK to eat the abominations.
Click to expand...
Not that I want to get into a big theological and biblical understanding discussion but for the record, no, thats not how it worked. That being said, I suppose if you take it out of context it could look that way but that conclusion leaves out all context to the discussion of the place of the jewish law in relationship to Christ and the rather new idea of following Christ and what that actually meant.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Just keep a copy of this in your pocket to use whenever anyone quotes scripture

[quote = West Wing]

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.[/quote]
 
J

Jiarn

I'd REALLY love to hear a religious zealot answer those questions.
 
C

Chibibar

Necronic said:
Just keep a copy of this in your pocket to use whenever anyone quotes scripture

[quote = West Wing]

Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don't say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.
Click to expand...
[/quote]
Oooo I like that.
 
Espy

Espy

I love the quote from the west wing because it shows that most people who just cherry pick scripture don't understand that context and historical understanding are imperative. Otherwise you are just an asshole with an opinion. And everyone has both.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Tell me the contexts. I'm interested. I won't even be snarky since I have no stake in religion either way.
 
Espy

Espy

Sorry, I guess my post wasn't clear: Bartlet gives the guy some context. Bartlet is the one showing him that he's cherry picking stuff without bothering to understand it. I mean, of course, it's oversimplified and probably intended to mock those who believe in the authority of scripture, but still it works. If you really want context for something like the laws and customs described in the Torah, and I say this with no sarcasm or snark, take a class on it (they usually have some free classes at Synagog's that are really informative if slightly less scholarly since they are for laymen). It's a HUGE topic that I could never hope to cover in a forum post, but it's fascinating stuff to learn about especially when you dig into what life was like back then.
 
Krisken

Krisken

Ah, ok. I see we are basically on the same page on the issue. It's a shame that people use things like religion to put others down or to feel superior. I much prefer religion as a way to bring people together :)
 
Tress

Tress

Espy said:
Sorry, I guess my post wasn't clear: Bartlet gives the guy some context. Bartlet is the one showing him that he's cherry picking stuff without bothering to understand it. I mean, of course, it's oversimplified and probably intended to mock those who believe in the authority of scripture, but still it works. If you really want context for something like the laws and customs described in the Torah, and I say this with no sarcasm or snark, take a class on it (they usually have some free classes at Synagog's that are really informative if slightly less scholarly since they are for laymen). It's a HUGE topic that I could never hope to cover in a forum post, but it's fascinating stuff to learn about especially when you dig into what life was like back then.
Click to expand...
As I remember, the episode's context is like this: Bartlet is having a very frustrating day dealing with various crises. At the end of the day, he goes to a radio broadcasters meeting in the West Wing. One woman, an uber conservative radio host, refuses to stand up when everyone else does in the room because she won't even show him the most basic respect. So, he goes off on her in the above quote.

I don't think she was meant as a strawman for the religious, but rather a stand-in for both hardcore conservative media pundits AND zealous homophobes who cite religious doctrine. I think the focus is really more about people who twist things like scripture to justify their personal prejudice.
 
J

Jiarn

I don't know what's so wrong with living life without an organized religion. I mean, just be a good person, do you really need "guidance" to do that? Why do so many feel like it's their job to force a specfic ruleset on you based on very out dated texts?

We need something like "All-Star Religion". Let's drop all those centuries of retcons and start with something more modern day that people can really relate to!
 
Espy

Espy

Krisken said:
I would argue that just about everyone cherry picks when it comes to religion and politics.
Click to expand...
Kind... of? I'm not sure how to answer that. If you are saying that people who study scripture and do textual criticism or scholarly commentary/work then I would have to say thats absolutely not true. It doesn't mean that there isn't influence from their own ideas and theology in there at some level but that goes for anything that is studied in depth and is the furthest thing from "cherry picking".
Now if you are talking about politicians/evangelicals using random verses to justify something? Of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top