Freedom of speech is not a right

[elliott95]

Any good school has some kind of curriculum to set the parameters within which any individual teacher can teach.
That is not a freedom of speech issue. If a Satanist wants to set up a Satanist school to teach crud to his kids, or any who want to join up, he is free to do so.
Otherwise, follow the curriculum.
Any public school that offers such garbage in their curriculum needs to have the parents and the politicians that the parents put into office come down hard on that school.

And there is no reason that any university would need to accept students who come from Satanist schools, no more than they already don't accept students from schools that do not teach evolution.
That is something for parents to consider too.

 

[Archivist]

Contrary to what some have said in this thread this Satanist display was not put up at a school. It was put up in a public park. The local law allows any religion to put up a display. Sorry but that includes Satanists.

 

[Archivist]

In Litiz PA a Nativity Scene was put up in the public square each year at Christmas. Several years ago it was challenged by the ACLU. A local attorney did som digging. It turned out that title to the square was held by the Moravian Church, which had founded Litiz in the 1700s. The square had never been deeded to the borough. The display remained. However that is an exception. If the borough had owned the square it would have either had to permit displays by all faiths or banned all such displays.

 

[Tetra]

In Litiz PA a Nativity Scene was put up in the public square each year at Christmas. Several years ago it was challenged by the ACLU. A local attorney did som digging. It turned out that title to the square was held by the Moravian Church, which had founded Litiz in the 1700s. The square had never been deeded to the borough. The display remained. However that is an exception. If the borough had owned the square it would have either had to permit displays by all faiths or banned all such displays.

... which would be right. I'm for the complete separation between church and state.

 

[saffron park]

The alternative to freedom of speech is violence and coercion, which is certainly not a Christlike manner of conducting one's affairs.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

One more time....you are not related to any of them. Who do you rescue? You can only rescue one.

You are trying to demand a simple answer to a question that doesn't have one. That is the point of such experiments in fact. I rescue whichever has the greatest chance of survival. That is generally the infant but if I could be guaranteed that the zygotes would survive I would save them because then i would save the greatest number of lives. I is a lose lose situation in the end.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

You are trying to demand a simple answer to a question that doesn't have one. That is the point of such experiments in fact. I rescue whichever has the greatest chance of survival. That is generally the infant but if I could be guaranteed that the zygotes would survive I would save them because then i would save the greatest number of lives. I is a lose lose situation in the end.

Baloney...big time baloney. Why would there be a conundrum there? A LIVING 5 year old who will die a horrifying death in a fire vs. a few thousand zygotes that nobody will miss.

 

[Open Heart]

The title of this thread is chilling.

What's more chilling is that 40% of millenials believe that speech should not be free if it is politically incorrect. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Opinion | A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

 

[mikeforjesus]

There must be limits to freedom of speech to allow in proper times.
No severe punishments need to be opposed but they must be stopped. Such as an angry person yelling in the streets scaring the people just stop him. It is not the place.

But if they will allow satanism they have to allow that too.
I say we allow both but there must be limits

 

[elliott95]

The title of this thread is chilling.

What's more chilling is that 40% of millenials believe that speech should not be free if it is politically incorrect. A fifth of undergrads now say it’s acceptable to use physical force to silence a speaker who makes “offensive and hurtful statements.”

40% of Millennials OK with limiting speech offensive to minorities
Opinion | A chilling study shows how hostile college students are toward free speech

Millennials in the poll believe strongly in their own freedom to say what they believe in, but they believe just as strongly in the idea that people ought not be allowed the freedom to disagree with them.
Hate the haters.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

Baloney...big time baloney. Why would there be a conundrum there? A LIVING 5 year old who will die a horrifying death in a fire vs. a few thousand zygotes that nobody will miss.

"Why would there be a conundrum there?" Because this is not a simple yes no question that you keep trying to make it. WHat is the CORRECT answer to the trolley dilemma? It is abloney because it is such a ridiculous scenario.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

Millennials in the poll believe strongly in their own freedom to say what they believe in, but they believe just as strongly in the idea that people ought not be allowed the freedom to disagree with them.
Hate the haters.

Yes I have noticed this. "Say whatever you want as long as it agrees with me". They think that if they find something offensive that means no one should be allowed to say it,m to the point where you end up not being able to say anything.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

"Why would there be a conundrum there?" Because this is not a simple yes no question that you keep trying to make it. WHat is the CORRECT answer to the trolley dilemma? It is abloney because it is such a ridiculous scenario.

SO, let me get this straight...you would have problems deciding who to save, right? I think you're talking around and around. It IS a simple question...a LIVING child vs a bunch of 5 cell zygote potential humans, which do you sentence to death? The one who would know they were dying and suffering pain or a bunch of cells with no nervous system to speak of and have never had consciousness? Give me a break...you don't want to admit you'd let the child die and rescue the zygotes who are no different than a bunch of cells of any other body system. It is a simple question that you keep talking around and around because an honest answer would show either your "pro-life" stance is a lie or that you would willingly sentence a conscious LIVING person to a horrid death.

 

[elliott95]

If the choice was between my child and another child, I would save my child.
It doesn't mean that the other child is somehow less human.
It is an emotional thing.

That emotional thing carries on when it is a choice between a five year old child, and a five week old unborn.

It doesn't change the science of a person is a person no matter how small.
Just ask Horton.

 

[Archivist]

If the choice was between my child and another child, I would save my child.
It doesn't mean that the other child is somehow less human.
It is an emotional thing.

That emotional thing carries on when it is a choice between a five year old child, and a five week old unborn.

It doesn't change the science of a person is a person no matter how small.
Just ask Horton.

But didn’t Jesus say to love your neighbor as yourself? Doesn’t automatically saving your child instead of your neighbor’s child violate that?

 

[elliott95]

But didn’t Jesus say to love your neighbor as yourself? Doesn’t automatically saving your child instead of your neighbor’s child violate that?

No, I don't think so.
Nor would saving the neighbor's child over your own violate Jesus' words.
Love in the end is more than an emotion, and in a world where God is a father, parental responsibility is a supreme value.
We are the ones who brought out children into the world. Our first responsibility is toward them.

Now if you would save the neighbour's child over your own, best that you let your own child know that that would be your choice in the interest of full disclosure.. It might be something that she would want to know about you.

 

[Archivist]

No, I don't think so.
Nor would saving the neighbor's child over your own violate Jesus' words.
Love in the end is more than an emotion, and in a world where God is a father, parental responsibility is a supreme value.
We are the ones who brought out children into the world. Our first responsibility is toward them.

Now if you would save the neighbour's child over your own, best that you let your own child know that that would be your choice in the interest of full disclosure.. It might be something that she would want to know about you.

I see. So you don't love your neighbor as yourself?

 

[Open Heart]

But didn’t Jesus say to love your neighbor as yourself? Doesn’t automatically saving your child instead of your neighbor’s child violate that?

Your own child is also your neighbor, and your child is a neighbor that you have been entrusted with a special responsibility to keep safe and nurture.

 

[Zatek]

Erecting a statue on government property has nothing to do with free speech, though a lot of people would probably say the think it does. Free speech means the government cannot punish you for expressing your ideas on your own property, books, websites, website, signs, media, whatever. Freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, they are all basically the same in terms of people being allowed to express their ideas and the government isn't allowed to punish anyone simply because of their ideas. Having or not having statues on government property has nothing to do with your own personal expression of ideas.

If you want to stop satanic monuments from being put up in your community then stop being a lazy sack of crap and get out and vote and get your friends to vote. If you vote strong Christians into office then they won't be putting up satanic statues and you wont need to come up with silly argument of how statues on government property somehow relate to free speech or the first amendment.

 

[HermanNeutics13]

I see. So you don't love your neighbor as yourself?

Who would you save then? Either your own child or your neighbors? In identical circumstances and you can only save 1.