Anyway, I think its common sense to have any form of hate mongering silenced because its just not productive, although I'm sick of government poking their nose into religious teachings on the basis of their opinion of morality. Religious teaching is the best thing we have to a human moral standard and the more the government decides it can do a better job, the more doors it will open to other "sinful" acts.
The problem with this that you don't know where "hate speech" stops, and political dissent begins. Will it be hate speech to call another political pary "immoral"? Or even criticise the current administration (some of which has become rather hatefull, but lets not turn this thread into a pro-bush anti-bush one) The trouble with restricting the freedom to say one thing is that it establises a precident for restricting the freedome to say another.
Hate speech legislation sounds all fine and dandy, but in the end I believe its dangerous
WWJD
What Would Julianna Do (if she read your post)
When I say hate mongering, I mean condemning someone to death because you don't agree with them or share their beleifs. Obviously its fine to voice your opinion if you think what someone is doing is immoral and no law should stop this.
Here's a different take, what if the pastors were preaching marriage with a different race as a sin?
Actually, depending how you translate it, it says several times in the Bible not to join with a foreign partner. This would instantly cause arguments if it was widely preached, and most churches avoid talking about it altogether. Not to say the Bible promotes racial hatred, but maybe some sort of segragation. Nobody ever said religion wasn't controversial, lol.
Here's a different take, what if the pastors were preaching marriage with a different race as a sin?
Actually, depending how you translate it, it says several times in the Bible not to join with a foreign partner.
The Bible says anything about anything depending on how you translate it.
That's why there are dozens of sub-sects of Christianity, and a fair few variations on Judaism, and have been just as many wars over it.
It's because so much of it is written in stories and parables and left for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
Follow the shoe!
BTW - IPU FTW!
Originally posted by Julianna Rose Official
GetLazy is our next target it will be closed very shortly.
The thing is, FSM is merely a weak parody on Christianity, Scientology is the "real deal" or whatever that's supposed to mean.
I probably shouldn't have put them all in the same group like that, I apologize. Scientology is a fake religion made by a sci-fi author (Xenu wil get you!); and "The Family" is a cult which twists beliefs (love=sex, love for everyone with them, including children), but they'll deny that of course. I think FSM is a lot more than that, even though it failed to motivate those guys to stop teaching Intelligent Design in a Science class. If you're going to teach that in a science class, you better teach everything else from every other religion. Although calling Intelligent Design science is quite blasphemous.
I would sooo be a scientologist if it meant I could hang out with Tom Cruise
OK, numma one, Scientology sucks.
Number two, I think they should maybe limit this bill to in the context of political policy or speech. Because I do think that religious orientation should have no bearing on politics, save for the preservation of people's right to practice it. But picking a president based on what religion he practices and not how much he knows about, say, the economy or foreign policy.. That's stupid.
*From ultra-liberal Massachusetts, w00+!*
-Jared
It's a piece of cake to bake pretty cake!!1!
Comment