* "History of Saints Servius and Bacchus", handed out by a man dressed as a Catholic priest, claiming that these two Catholic saints were actually homosexual lovers.
* "Catholic Theological Defense of Same-sex Marriage" pamphlet which states that there is "no moral right to declare marriage off limits to persons whom God has made gay" and that the Pope "is definitely wrong and he will be corrected some day by one of his successors." (Also handed out by the abovementioned "priest".)
* "Reading the Bible with New Eyes" - a pamphlet that portrays Jesus as having had a homosexual affair with Lazarus and Mary as a lesbian. It also describes the Book of Acts as "defining a lesbian and gay 'nation'". It also states that Jesus "was a functional, if not physical, eunuch."
* "Queer Spirituality" A booklet from a "church" describing how homosexuality is a spiritual experience that "opens us up to God."
massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.htmlNice, it is good to see similar people getting mutual support and if you look at the pictures, you can see they are normal people just like the rest of us.
Why are you advocating physical violence against ideas you disagree with? Do you really dislike them that much?
They used physical tactics to shut up a guy who they disagree with. How else are you supposed to be able to speak your mind other than removing them from the platform? See, from my perspective, which I know you disagree, these tactics that they use are working and have worked in the past. They are gaining ground using those tactics. Again, I know you see that as a good thing, but hear me out. From my perspective, that means that mine and others ideology is losing. How else are we suppose to be able to speak if they are using mass numbers to silence us and push their agenda forward? It is time to fight fire with fire, or, to just forget all about it, and not give a **** about anything.
and it’s minor) In the 30’s, it was “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” In the 000"s, it is “Well, you F’n name it b itch.”I was not refering to the parade. I was refering to the video link I posted, where in fact, the right WAS silenced. Did you happen to see the video? And, their are consequences to public speech.
From what I have seen on this site, it appears that the religious right is smaller than you think. They may be religious, but they certainly are not on the right.
Sure, if you consider indoctrination “convincing”.
They are youth. Remeber: Don’t trust anyone over 30? This tolerance begins in schools, where they are taught it. Or where the government steps in and demands it. Protected freedom for only one side, huh?
Well, I disagree to a point with that. The first amendment applies to the government and the people. Not neccessarily between the people and the people. As far as that is concerned, their are consequences to unlimited free speech. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater and if some speech royaly pisses someone off, then conflict can be expected.
In the video, when those girls stormed the speaker, those in the audiance should have stepped up and removed them. A fight, would have been instigated by those who sought to silence the speaker.
And where did I say it was?
You missed the point entirely.
And I am allowed to resist those changes.
Just like their isn’t. And now we have a problem. But I am not in schools, because we are not allowed in them, indoctrinating children with a one sided view. Schools should not be in the business of social engineering.
I explained some points to NewUlm1976_2000 on my views on Liberalism. It has come up before between us. But nice to see that because you disagree, it is considered a rant.
That incident took place at a private university. They can have/not have/stop/kick anyone out they want if they decide otherwise, even in the middle of a speech.
The school administrators did not kick them out, average kids did.
In a sense, yes. According to Smith College president Carol T. Christ:
smith.edu/president/letters/043008.html
But that Catholic school, they are presumably not recieving government funds. The school in the video, Smith College, DID. Now, if a teacher cannot say a prayer in class because she gets paid through the government, and is considered an “agent” of the government, dosen’t that mean that at Smith College, the government prohibited free speech? YES it does.
Funny how those girls in the video mangaed to silence this guy using “free speech”. I say, he has the right as did everyone in that room, to force them out.
Where in the Constitution does it say that such a limit exists? See, you are mis interpretingthe first amendment. It has to do with the government not silencing the people. We have every right to fight back against people silencing people. I have my side and they have theirs. Where I come from, both sides yelling at each other, eventually leads to a fight.
Yeah, but we are not using publicly funded schools and platforms aimed at impressionable kids. Religious people of any kind of authority, are not allowed in schools. So much for “free speech”.
I made no such implication. Tradition is not limited to Christianity.
Of course. And wars have happened because of situations like that.
That’s right. Just as it seems to conform to your morality. It’s called a disagreement, only I am ready to escalate my position to combat what I see as an escalation on my opponents side.
It was not a rant, it was an explanation of why I belive what I belive and it was directed to the relalvant person that I have had previous discussions with on the topic of liberalism. This is an internet site. If I had written a book on my positions, I would have glaldy refered it to him to read.
I see what you are saying, but it seems like reaching. As she said:
I didn’t say anything about Aquinas. But, unless I am reading this wrong, they get tax paryer funding too. PLEASE correct me if I am wrong. And Smith College does get federal funding.
But Smith College is a private school, at least as private as Aquinas College. Why do you say Smith is getting public funding but Aquinas isn’t?
Are you being for real? I honestly cannot believe you said that. How judgemental of you to pass assumptions upon a whole gender or class of people based on the actions of a few you disagree with.
I don’t understand where you are getting your whole, “silence of free speech” comment, maybe you can explain??
Why are you so outraged? Because people are different from you? Because their beliefs aren’t aligned with yours?