Censorship - Yes or No?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I don’t think that is the case. He is impassioned regarding his faith.

[/quote]

I laughed for a good two minutes at this. Well, not quite that long, but you get the point. You don’t have a clue how “impassioned” Steve is about faith. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if he revealed tomorrow that he doesn’t even believe in God and just did this to get a rise out of people. His posts are inflammatory and ridiculous on the issue and SEVERAL people who also believe in God have written as much. You show your own naievete when it comes to anyone speaking random words from the Bible. For a man so impassioned about the word of God, his actions are quite the opposite.

I don’t remember one sermon by Jesus in the Bible where his tag line was “bow or burn!!” repeated over and over. I’m laughing at you Zeb…and you deserve every chuckle of it. You stand up for him, perhaps, because you have the same biased and bigoted opinion for anyone who doesn’t think just like you.

62

Let steve post to his heart’s desire.

They will drop off the page faster than a brick in a pool if no one responds and he will get the hint.

FYI - The moderators do censor posts on this board. They censor everything from negative comments to other posters to negative comments regarding certain products…deal with it.

63

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I don’t think that is the case. He is impassioned regarding his faith.

I laughed for a good two minutes at this. Well, not quite that long, but you get the point. [/quote]

Glad I could make you laugh. I think you should learn to laugh more often, preferably at yourself since you take yourself so very seriously most of the time.

And neither do you.

All we know is what we read on these very boards and he seems very impassioned to me.

Just as you seem like a very large man who lifts weights. That’s what your posts imply and that’s what you SEEM to be. I take you at your word, and him at his.

That would surprise me as much as it would if you stated tomorrow that you were a pencil necked geek who weighed in at 150 pounds. Again, I take everyone at their word up to the point that I KNOW that they are lying.

Is Stevo lying?

Are you lying?

I don’t think so…But I could be wrong about both of you.

So are several of your posts. I don’t recall anyone telling you to NOT begin a thread because of this.

[quote]You show your own naievete when it comes to anyone speaking random words from the Bible. For a man so impassioned about the word of God, his actions are quite the opposite.

I don’t remember one sermon by Jesus in the Bible where his tag line was “bow or burn!!” repeated over and over. [/quote]

I agree, I don’t think they used those terms then, do you?

But Jesus did have many harsh words for his critics.

Maybe the following escaped you in your own biblical studies:

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them.”

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves."

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which on the outside look beautiful, but inside they are full of the bones of the dead and of all kinds of filth.

“So you also on the outside look righteous to others, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.”

Now I know none of the above has the common vernacular of this day. But those were very harsh words in Jesus time. Telling the Pharisees that they were keeping people OUT of heaven. WOW!

Telling them that they are making people “twice the child of hell” as they were. HARSH…

Telling them that inside they were actually filled with “filth,” “lawlessness” and “hypocrisy.” Stevo has not nearly been as harsh as Jesus Christ was huh?

I’m surprised that you didn’t realize how harsh Jesus Christ could be at times Prof, given the fact that you have stated that your Dad was a Minister. And I believe that he was a Minister because YOU said he was.

[quote] I’m laughing at you Zeb…and you deserve every chuckle of it.
[/quote]

Hey knock yourself out prof. I hope it matches some of the belly laughs that you have given me through the years.

I think you better look at the top of the screen my little message board warrior.

This is more about his right to post than exactly WHAT he has posted and the style in which he posts. Perhaps YOU have assumed that I agree with his every word because you have a more liberal view of the scriptures. Then again we usually assume the worst regarding people we don’t like. Human nature I guess.

Oh, by the way how come you are not as put out when the atheists attack God on this site?

Never mind I get it…

64

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh, by the way how come you are not as put out when the atheists attack God on this site?

Never mind I get it…

[/quote]

For the largest reason, an atheist does not profess to stand for what I believe in.

65

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh, by the way how come you are not as put out when the atheists attack God on this site?

Never mind I get it…

For the largest reason, an atheist does not profess to stand for what I believe in.[/quote]

Ultimately there is only one man that stands for what you believe in…

66

[quote]orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh, by the way how come you are not as put out when the atheists attack God on this site?

Never mind I get it…

For the largest reason, an atheist does not profess to stand for what I believe in.

Ultimately there is only one man that stands for what you believe in…[/quote]

Mr. T?

67

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Oh, by the way how come you are not as put out when the atheists attack God on this site?

Never mind I get it…

For the largest reason, an atheist does not profess to stand for what I believe in.

Ultimately there is only one man that stands for what you believe in…

Mr. T?[/quote]

Ultimately there are only two men that stand for what you believe in…

68

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?[/quote]

I’m all for censorship if it means eliminating posts from one eyed vsionaries such as your self. Your close-minded and overbearing high minded drivel borders on obscene and pornographic. To think you are a teacher is downright scarey. No I won’t be responding to anything you spew in response to this from your self righteous pulpit.

69

[quote]orion wrote:
vroom wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Hmm…I think you “debate” everyone. I’ve never seen you shy away from a good debate. But in Stevos case, while you debate him you also do an amazing amount of name calling. And unlike others that you have gone after, including me, I detect a real hatred for this guy. Now I could be wrong but it sure seems like the ole’ vitriol faucet is stuck in the “on” position whenever you post to Stevo.

Zeb, you are one of the folks that I think are somewhat blinded by the fact that Steveo hides behind faith.

I have no hatred of Steveo at all, though there is certainly some heat between him and I. It’s not one way.

The fact that he likes to characterize everyone that he annoys as being somehow against religion does not make it so.

He’s getting a free pass that he doesn’t deserve, and yes, that does annoy me.

The fact that he treats his Holy Book like you do, i.e. he bends it like a bretzel when he feels he knows what His Lord says, instead of listening what He actually has to say also makes Orion very sad.

I cannot respect peoples beliefs if they do not respect them themselves, i.e accept them when it gets uncomfortable.

Someone with a hook line like “bow or burn” should know his stuff beyond some wishful thinking he found on a Christian website.

[/quote]

I have never – NEVER – N E V E R – consulted any “Christian website” in preparing any of my answers or assertions on any post ever here on T-Nation. I simpy use my Bible – either the one in my hand or the electronic one (Logos Bible software) on my computer. My knowledge of Sacred Scripture has been forged over many years of prayful study of God’s Word.

Now…

How about showing me where I have been wrong Biblically, Orion. Not your opinion or stringing together a few verses here or there to attempt to discret a Biblical teaching, but find something – anything in the Bible that shows that I have been wrong about anything I have ever posted on any thread.

I hope you accept the challenge and I will debate you on the specific points you make.

70

[quote]vroom wrote:
Zeb,

Upon reflection, I’m actually a bit annoyed that you think you have a leg to stand on in this conversation.

How many people have you written to T-Nation management about because you didn’t like their posting style?

I know I was one. I saw Harris griping about it recently as well. How in the hell do you get off criticizing people for disliking the direction Steveo is trying to take the forums when you routinely attempt to exert influence on peoples ability to post?

You are a hypocrite. I’m not going to waste a moments time trying to justify my viewpoint to you.

In an issue such as this you have absolutely zero credibility. As far as I know those of us annoyed by Steveo have limited ourselves to complaining in the forums - it isn’t like we’ve written to management petitioning for his “correction”, unlike yourself.

I can’t believe I even bothered to consider your viewpoint on this issue seriously!

I’d rather discuss this with Steveo than yourself, at least he hasn’t tried to have my viewpoint squelched, at least that I’m aware of.

Steveo, kudos to you in that respect, honestly.

I’m out.[/quote]

No problem, Vroom. Actually, I have no dislike for you, Vroom, and I don’t really believe you have any hatred for me either. We differ in both belief and style, and I respect your right to post what you believe and defend it in the strongest way possible.

I think Zeb is reacting to the tenor of some of the exchanges between us, and as I am unaware of anything which has transpired between you, I think Zeb makes a fair point.

However, I wouldn’t go to management to attempt to squash dialoge of any kind, since I have been consistent in my assertion that everyone should have his or her opinions aired in the marketplace of ideas and may the Truth win at the end of the day.

71

[quote]Professor X wrote:
ZEB wrote:

I don’t think that is the case. He is impassioned regarding his faith.

I laughed for a good two minutes at this. Well, not quite that long, but you get the point. You don’t have a clue how “impassioned” Steve is about faith. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if he revealed tomorrow that he doesn’t even believe in God and just did this to get a rise out of people. His posts are inflammatory and ridiculous on the issue and SEVERAL people who also believe in God have written as much. You show your own naievete when it comes to anyone speaking random words from the Bible. For a man so impassioned about the word of God, his actions are quite the opposite.

I don’t remember one sermon by Jesus in the Bible where his tag line was “bow or burn!!” repeated over and over. I’m laughing at you Zeb…and you deserve every chuckle of it. You stand up for him, perhaps, because you have the same biased and bigoted opinion for anyone who doesn’t think just like you. [/quote]

Prof X, you have lowered yourself to the tried and true – if you cannot stand God’s message, then attack the messenger. Trying to intimate that I am some type of fraud is as ridiculous as me stating that you are really some 102 lb 5 foot guy that has never lifted a weight in his life. So please, spare us…

If you think I have misstated Bible teaching, then why don’t you enlighten us with my error. In order to do this, you will have to find Bible teaching that contradicts what I have stated in any of my posts. I stand by the Word of God, and I am a committed and active Christian in both witnessing my faith, teaching the Word of God, and other leadership roles in my church.

My challenge to you is to find something to contradict my “Bow or Burn” statement. This statement, while not appearing in the Bible, IS in fact taught in the Bible. It simply is referring to the teaching that unless a man bows at the feet of Jesus Christ and accepts Him as Lord and Savior, he is headed for a Christless eternity in the Lake of Fire. This is taught in the Gospels and in Revelation and elsewhere.

I challenge you to show me – BIBLICALLY – where this is wrong. If not, then please, with all due respect, keep silent on things that you don’t know what you are talking about.

72

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Let steve post to his heart’s desire.

They will drop off the page faster than a brick in a pool if no one responds and he will get the hint.

FYI - The moderators do censor posts on this board. They censor everything from negative comments to other posters to negative comments regarding certain products…deal with it.[/quote]

Yes, but oh, how people love to post on these threads, while all the while crying about them. Interesting…

73

[quote]pbody03 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?

I’m all for censorship if it means eliminating posts from one eyed vsionaries such as your self. Your close-minded and overbearing high minded drivel borders on obscene and pornographic. To think you are a teacher is downright scarey. No I won’t be responding to anything you spew in response to this from your self righteous pulpit.[/quote]

Yes, I know it can be scary thinking a teacher would stand in front of young people to encourage them to love God with all of their heart, mind, and soul and to serve Him with their lives. Yes, teaching them the joys of the 10 Commandments of God is an awful thing.

Better for them to go to the public school where they can be taught by atheists such as yourself. Yes better they to be taught to have sex but only use protection, that it is OK and a choice to kill your unborn baby, and of course that sodomy is a legit alternative lifestyle.

Yes, much better to prohibit the use of the Bible, the posting of the commands of God and exchange them for a secular, Godless worldview, where every one’s opinion is equal to everyone else’s and there is no moral absolutes.

Yes, I know it is very scary indeed…

74

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?

I’m all for censorship if it means eliminating posts from one eyed vsionaries such as your self. Your close-minded and overbearing high minded drivel borders on obscene and pornographic. To think you are a teacher is downright scarey. No I won’t be responding to anything you spew in response to this from your self righteous pulpit.

Yes, I know it can be scary thinking a teacher would stand in front of young people to encourage them to love God with all of their heart, mind, and soul and to serve Him with their lives. Yes, teaching them the joys of the 10 Commandments of God is an awful thing.

Better for them to go to the public school where they can be taught by atheists such as yourself. Yes better they to be taught to have sex but only use protection, that it is OK and a choice to kill your unborn baby, and of course that sodomy is a legit alternative lifestyle.

Yes, much better to prohibit the use of the Bible, the posting of the commands of God and exchange them for a secular, Godless worldview, where every one’s opinion is equal to everyone else’s and there is no moral absolutes.

Yes, I know it is very scary indeed…[/quote]

Does that mean you believe that everyone’s opinions are not equal?Or are some just more equal than others?

The separation of church and state is a crucial component of any modern democracy,and the only way of insuring equal freedom for all opposing viewpoints.

Any other system surely equates to censorship,doesn’t it?

A teachers job,as I see it,is to give young minds the necessary tools for critical evaluation and assesment of all manner of different situations and viewpoins they may encounter. They can then make up their own minds.

If parents want to base their upbringing of their offspring on a religious template,then that is their choice and they are entitled to it.But that is to be done on their own time in the home environment,or to send their kids to a private school that teaches whatever their beliefs might be.

What is not acceptable is to have one singular point of view foisted on any children other than your own in a public school environment.Morality can also be taught without having a religious slant.

Secular does not equal godless,it just affords everyone the right to choose their own religious structures without imposing them from above.
That is freedom.

75

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?

I’m all for censorship if it means eliminating posts from one eyed vsionaries such as your self. Your close-minded and overbearing high minded drivel borders on obscene and pornographic. To think you are a teacher is downright scarey. No I won’t be responding to anything you spew in response to this from your self righteous pulpit.

Yes, I know it can be scary thinking a teacher would stand in front of young people to encourage them to love God with all of their heart, mind, and soul and to serve Him with their lives. Yes, teaching them the joys of the 10 Commandments of God is an awful thing.

Better for them to go to the public school where they can be taught by atheists such as yourself. Yes better they to be taught to have sex but only use protection, that it is OK and a choice to kill your unborn baby, and of course that sodomy is a legit alternative lifestyle.

Yes, much better to prohibit the use of the Bible, the posting of the commands of God and exchange them for a secular, Godless worldview, where every one’s opinion is equal to everyone else’s and there is no moral absolutes.

Yes, I know it is very scary indeed…

Does that mean you believe that everyone’s opinions are not equal?Or are some just more equal than others?

The separation of church and state is a crucial component of any modern democracy,and the only way of insuring equal freedom for all opposing viewpoints.

Any other system surely equates to censorship,doesn’t it?

A teachers job,as I see it,is to give young minds the necessary tools for critical evaluation and assesment of all manner of different situations and viewpoins they may encounter. They can then make up their own minds.

If parents want to base their upbringing of their offspring on a religious template,then that is their choice and they are entitled to it.But that is to be done on their own time in the home environment,or to send their kids to a private school that teaches whatever their beliefs might be.

What is not acceptable is to have one singular point of view foisted on any children other than your own in a public school environment.Morality can also be taught without having a religious slant.

Secular does not equal godless,it just affords everyone the right to choose their own religious structures without imposing them from above.
That is freedom.[/quote]

Oh yes, secular does mean godless. That is exactly what is going on. However, yes, parents have a right to send their children to a godless, secular environment where they can be taught that sin (sodomy, abortion, sex before marriage as long as it is protected, etc) are just lifestyle choices we can make.

And, no sir, I don’t believe all opinions are equal or have equal value at all. I believe that all opinions have the right to be said and aired in the marketplace of ideas, but all opinions are far from equal. No, sir, I don’t believe, for example that the opinion that a sodomite lifesytle is equal to that of a heterosexual lifestyle are equal opinions. I believe that God teaches, clearly, the former is sin while the latter is the model. So, to send kids into an enviornment where they will be receiving opinions such as this as FACT, in the guise of “tolerance,” and “live and let live,” is more scary than the implication that was being made that somehow it is scary that a person such as myself who believes and teaches the Bible would be teaching children. I simply point out the facts and I will let others make the decision as to what is more scary. Certainly the parents of our kids at school view this issue as I do.

76

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?

I’m all for censorship if it means eliminating posts from one eyed vsionaries such as your self. Your close-minded and overbearing high minded drivel borders on obscene and pornographic. To think you are a teacher is downright scarey. No I won’t be responding to anything you spew in response to this from your self righteous pulpit.

Yes, I know it can be scary thinking a teacher would stand in front of young people to encourage them to love God with all of their heart, mind, and soul and to serve Him with their lives. Yes, teaching them the joys of the 10 Commandments of God is an awful thing.

Better for them to go to the public school where they can be taught by atheists such as yourself. Yes better they to be taught to have sex but only use protection, that it is OK and a choice to kill your unborn baby, and of course that sodomy is a legit alternative lifestyle.

Yes, much better to prohibit the use of the Bible, the posting of the commands of God and exchange them for a secular, Godless worldview, where every one’s opinion is equal to everyone else’s and there is no moral absolutes.

Yes, I know it is very scary indeed…

Does that mean you believe that everyone’s opinions are not equal?Or are some just more equal than others?

The separation of church and state is a crucial component of any modern democracy,and the only way of insuring equal freedom for all opposing viewpoints.

Any other system surely equates to censorship,doesn’t it?

A teachers job,as I see it,is to give young minds the necessary tools for critical evaluation and assesment of all manner of different situations and viewpoins they may encounter. They can then make up their own minds.

If parents want to base their upbringing of their offspring on a religious template,then that is their choice and they are entitled to it.But that is to be done on their own time in the home environment,or to send their kids to a private school that teaches whatever their beliefs might be.

What is not acceptable is to have one singular point of view foisted on any children other than your own in a public school environment.Morality can also be taught without having a religious slant.

Secular does not equal godless,it just affords everyone the right to choose their own religious structures without imposing them from above.
That is freedom.[/quote]

I disagree completely with your last statement. What freedom? I don’t have the freedom to give God glory in a public school. I don’t, as a teacher, have the right to teach that there is a “theory” that God created everything. Atheists, agnostics, and pagans, who subscribe to evolution have the right to espouse these ideas as FACT. What freedom is there when you only allow one opinion to be aired – the secular opinion? That is not freedom, that is a monopoly of ideas designed to keep children ignorant of anything else. That is more, sir, akin what is done in Communist countries rather than what should be done in a nation that is supposed to be free.

Please don’t throw around words to suit your own ends. The fact is there is no freedom in a public school environment, except the freedom FROM anything other than secular.

And, btw, nowhere in the constitution does it say “separation of church and state.” What it does say, if you care to read it, is that Congress shall not make laws respecting the establishment of religion – i.e. Congress cannot make any one religion the “national religion.” The Founders never intended to rip God out of daily life. Again, stop making things up just because you were taught these things in the godless environment of secular humanistic public schools.

77

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:

And, btw, nowhere in the constitution does it say “separation of church and state.” What it does say, if you care to read it, is that Congress shall not make laws respecting the establishment of religion – i.e. Congress cannot make any one religion the “national religion.” The Founders never intended to rip God out of daily life. Again, stop making things up just because you were taught these things in the godless environment of secular humanistic public schools.
[/quote]

Well, you are right: the Constitution does not mention any separation of church and state. Those were Thomas Jefferson’s words. Jefferson believed, rightly I think, that when religion dictates national policy, the results are not always good.

The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Thirty Years’ War, the Iranian Revolution, the PLO and the Taliban…just some of the offspring of the unholy union of church and state.

Note, however, that separating religion and politics is not at all the same thing as excluding God from society. This, as you rightly stated, was not the founders’ intention. It surely was not Jefferson’s, as he made clear in the following letter, written in 1802. If you look carefully you might find his view on censorship as well.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

78

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
pbody03 wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Since many people on these forums have proposed what amounts to censoring my threads when it comes to religion, I thought that we should talk about the topic of censorsip in general.

Is there any room for the censoring of ideas in a free society like ours? I mean, taking aside pornography and obscene speech – the question is:

Should speech that is disliked by some (or even the majority) be censored by that majority?

I am not talking about me, necessarily, but the concept in general. I would like to hear your ideas on these subpoints:

(1) When is it OK to censor disliked speech?

(2) Do the topics matter – should we censor only religious topics?

(3) Who gets to decide what is censored?

(4) Who gets to decide what is acceptable or unacceptable speech?

(5) How does the Bill of Rights figure into all of this?

In my view, as long as someone is not promoting anything illegal or obscene, there is no room for censorship of any kind in the public marketplace of ideas (period).

What say ye?

I’m all for censorship if it means eliminating posts from one eyed vsionaries such as your self. Your close-minded and overbearing high minded drivel borders on obscene and pornographic. To think you are a teacher is downright scarey. No I won’t be responding to anything you spew in response to this from your self righteous pulpit.

Yes, I know it can be scary thinking a teacher would stand in front of young people to encourage them to love God with all of their heart, mind, and soul and to serve Him with their lives. Yes, teaching them the joys of the 10 Commandments of God is an awful thing.

Better for them to go to the public school where they can be taught by atheists such as yourself. Yes better they to be taught to have sex but only use protection, that it is OK and a choice to kill your unborn baby, and of course that sodomy is a legit alternative lifestyle.

Yes, much better to prohibit the use of the Bible, the posting of the commands of God and exchange them for a secular, Godless worldview, where every one’s opinion is equal to everyone else’s and there is no moral absolutes.

Yes, I know it is very scary indeed…

Does that mean you believe that everyone’s opinions are not equal?Or are some just more equal than others?

The separation of church and state is a crucial component of any modern democracy,and the only way of insuring equal freedom for all opposing viewpoints.

Any other system surely equates to censorship,doesn’t it?

A teachers job,as I see it,is to give young minds the necessary tools for critical evaluation and assesment of all manner of different situations and viewpoins they may encounter. They can then make up their own minds.

If parents want to base their upbringing of their offspring on a religious template,then that is their choice and they are entitled to it.But that is to be done on their own time in the home environment,or to send their kids to a private school that teaches whatever their beliefs might be.

What is not acceptable is to have one singular point of view foisted on any children other than your own in a public school environment.Morality can also be taught without having a religious slant.

Secular does not equal godless,it just affords everyone the right to choose their own religious structures without imposing them from above.
That is freedom.

I disagree completely with your last statement. What freedom? I don’t have the freedom to give God glory in a public school. I don’t, as a teacher, have the right to teach that there is a “theory” that God created everything. Atheists, agnostics, and pagans, who subscribe to evolution have the right to espouse these ideas as FACT. What freedom is there when you only allow one opinion to be aired – the secular opinion? That is not freedom, that is a monopoly of ideas designed to keep children ignorant of anything else. That is more, sir, akin what is done in Communist countries rather than what should be done in a nation that is supposed to be free.

Please don’t throw around words to suit your own ends. The fact is there is no freedom in a public school environment, except the freedom FROM anything other than secular.

And, btw, nowhere in the constitution does it say “separation of church and state.” What it does say, if you care to read it, is that Congress shall not make laws respecting the establishment of religion – i.e. Congress cannot make any one religion the “national religion.” The Founders never intended to rip God out of daily life. Again, stop making things up just because you were taught these things in the godless environment of secular humanistic public schools.
[/quote]

And I would be making things up how?Did I mention the constitution in my post?I was speaking in general terms that apply equally to any country you care to mention.Don’t for a second presume you know anything about where and how my education was gained.
I did not at any time denigrate or invalidate your viewpoint.I merely put forward my beliefs.
You are free to teach and praise the glory of God anywhere that is considered a proper forum for it,i.e. a private school where the parents and staff are all in agreement as to what they wish their children to be taught.Otherwise what is there to stop every religious faith and denomination from wanting to expounds their views in the public school forum?Do you propose then that Islam,Judaism,Christianity,Buddhism,Mormons and all the many wide and varied faiths that exist in every country should also be allowed full and unfettered access to all school children?
Or do you not recognize the parents rights and responsibility to be able to control what their children get exposed to?

The responsibilities of parenthood are not there to be usurped by ,or relinquished to ,any one faction.Being a parent is the MOST important job any of us will ever have the privilige of doing,and I for one will not be dictated to by anyone as to how I do the job.
Hence what I want from a School system is not a forum for religion,because that is my job.
So I will decide as to what type of school my children will attend and what extra curricular teaching they are to have.While whatever my choice is may not be to everyones taste,I respect that,and that everyone else has the right to bring their children in the manner they see fit,with the influences they wish to expose them to.That is why private schools exist.Unless you give equal time to all the faiths that are represented by children in a public system,which is impossible,the only logical conclusion is to leave those contentious and intensely personal issues up to parental guidance at home.
Schools cannot be allowed to be used as recruitment centres,no matter how worthy one feels the cause to be.
And please don’t be condescending.It doesn’t do anything for the level of debate.We can agree to disagree and still enjoy the argument.

79

Censorship is left up to the indvidual. If a nut in the subway is screaming about religion I can simply walk around him or away from him. When a thread is posted I can read it, skip it, or respond to it. My first post on this sight was about Harvard inviting the former president of Iran. I dont agree with them doing it, but they had every right to invite him. Some liberal rump swab then jumped on me for being upset. Good for him, our opinions crossed, and he said his piece. What do you want this sight to be, 50 posts a day of how much can you bench? (325 by the way)

80

[quote]goody wrote:
(325 by the way) [/quote]

Get bigger.