Corcaigh Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Does anyone remember who Ted Haggard is? You know, the GAY person who was bashing gays in the Jesus Camp video??? Ah lay off Ted Haggard. He's completely heterosexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Ah lay off Ted Haggard. He's completely heterosexual. :laugh: Yea, he was cured of "the gay":laugh: Funny video BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RammsteinSkins Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Yeah...I watched it on Google Video. It was some really heavy stuff. I do not know how those people can call themselves Christians. They are a disgrace to Christians imo.thank you,seems more like brain washing instea of christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 we've discussed this before. my opinions on this are the same as always. very frieghtening. what some don't realize is that the radio guy in the documentary is a christian, and that this is actually a christian documentary of sorts. most telling is the part where the lady is being interviewd and she can't even connect her belifs to those of Jesus or answer questions about Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 most telling is the part where the lady is being interviewd and she can't even connect her belifs to those of Jesus or answer questions about Jesus. She wants to be more fanatical in her religious belief than those who are strapping explosives to themselves. :doh::laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 "Or maybe you haven't met the people I've met" . . . Like Giggalo's!!! :laugh: Another great clip on Haggard with Richard Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtptkxQo1M&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Just because you are not allowed to FORCE a class to say a prayer to god in school does not mean Christianity is being attacked, it means that people are finally starting to wake up and see the light. chom I agree with your sentiment up until about here (and the money, that doesn't hurt or discriminate against anyone). while I agree with this statement in particular, that school cannot lead or force children to say a morning prayer, you are ignoring a second half to this issue. while the ruling in Engle V. Vitale was mostly correct if not for a few minor things here and there, the ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe is clearly an erroneous ruling in favor of the right to not be insulted (or to not be expossed to something you disagree with) over the 1st amendment rights to free expression of religion and the freedom of speech. I say this because it is now illegal, I repeat ILLEGAL, for prayers to be said in locker rooms before games, even student initiated ones, and for prayers to be said at graduation and over the pA before football games, even if they are student initiated and led. this my friend is a travestry to liberty, and while the sentiment in other cases regarding funding and other non-personal matters are more or less in line, this ruling is an outrageous scaling back of the 1st amendment.for example I would have no problem going to say Utah and hearing a mormon prayer before a football game. nor if I went to Japan and they prayed to the heathen sun-God or to their local politician. FREEDOM is absolute, government control is tyranny. edit: disclaimer, the bold is sarcasm, I know sarcasm doesn't come across well in type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Another great clip on Haggard with Richard Dawkins I didn't find the video that compelling, but mostly I was distracted by the fact that Haggard appeared to have fangs. He kept giving Dawkins that creepy smile, and I kept expecting him to leap across the space between them and rip Dawkins' throat out, then howl with the uncontrollable bloodlust! :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 "Or maybe you haven't met the people I've met" . . . Like Giggalo's!!!:laugh: Another great clip on Haggard with Richard Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtptkxQo1M&feature=related good clip, but it could do without the comentary. I can grab a book real quick and cite key christian scientists who believe in the things he (the animated narator) said and are still in favor of inteligent design. hell, the founder and leader of the human genome project is a christian, one who believes in creation, evolution, and the 4.5 billion year old age of the earth:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EersSkins05 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I think that fanaticism about nearly anything is terrifiying. With the obvious exception of the Redskins and Mountaineers. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathartic-j Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe is clearly an erogenous ruling ... I know I certainly got excited when looking at that ruling ... much better than pron ... (I think you meant "erroneous." ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I know I certainly got excited when looking at that ruling ... much better than pron ...(I think you meant "erroneous." ) I think that you are underestimating some of the atheists out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I know I certainly got excited when looking at that ruling ... much better than pron ...(I think you meant "erroneous." ) haha, thats why we have editors in this world. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 chom I agree with your sentiment up until about here (and the money, that doesn't hurt or discriminate against anyone). while I agree with this statement in particular, that school cannot lead or force children to say a morning prayer, you are ignoring a second half to this issue. while the ruling in Engle V. Vitale was mostly correct if not for a few minor things here and there, the ruling in Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe is clearly an erroneous ruling in favor of the right to not be insulted (or to not be expossed to something you disagree with) over the 1st amendment rights to free expression of religion and the freedom of speech. I say this because it is now illegal, I repeat ILLEGAL, for prayers to be said in locker rooms before games, even student initiated ones, and for prayers to be said at graduation and over the pA before football games, even if they are student initiated and led. this my friend is a travestry to liberty, and while the sentiment in other cases regarding funding and other non-personal matters are more or less in line, this ruling is an outrageous scaling back of the 1st amendment.for example I would have no problem going to say Utah and hearing a mormon prayer before a football game. nor if I went to Japan and they prayed to the heathen sun-God or to their local politician. FREEDOM is absolute, government control is tyranny. edit: disclaimer, the bold is sarcasm, I know sarcasm doesn't come across well in type I agree with you, during sports activities go to far, it is more of a pre-game tradition than anything else. I understand their point, I just don't agree with it, but in all honesty, i could go either way with it. i wouldn't call it a "travesty" I would say it goes too far to one side, but it is very close to the middle ground which is a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I didn't find the video that compelling, but mostly I was distracted by the fact that Haggard appeared to have fangs. He kept giving Dawkins that creepy smile, and I kept expecting him to leap across the space between them and rip Dawkins' throat out, then howl with the uncontrollable bloodlust! :laugh: Eh I though the commentary was funny. . .well the gigolo bit at least. . .and yea, Haggard did look kind of creepy to me, and to be honest, if I were a male prostitute, I would be scared to death to be on the receiving end from him :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I agree with you, during sports activities go to far, it is more of a pre-game tradition than anything else. I understand their point, I just don't agree with it, but in all honesty, i could go either way with it. i wouldn't call it a "travesty" I would say it goes too far to one side, but it is very close to the middle ground which is a good thing yes, but the point here is instead of mandating it to be non-denominational or offering other students of different faiths to pray after that or something, they've just banned speech altogether. that is a violation of the 1st amendment, and a classic example of the legislative judiciary. If congress "shall make no law regarding" religion, why should the judiciary be able to when its power is derived from the legislature?and quite frankly I think people need to lighten up: hearing a prayer for the safety of the players over the PA or in the locker room is not that big a deal, and people need to be less confrontational and asshatted when it comes to things like this; conservatives and liberals alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cathartic-j Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I think that you are underestimating some of the atheists out there... :laugh: haha, thats why we have editors in this world. thanks No problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 and quite frankly I think people need to lighten up: hearing a prayer for the safety of the players over the PA or in the locker room is not that big a deal, and people need to be less confrontational and asshatted when it comes to things like this; conservatives and liberals alike. I agree it's not a big deal, but why bother? In our society, in most such settings you will have a mix of Christians, Jews, Muslims, other faiths, and even a few atheists. Why are you requiring them all to take part in your public religious ceremony? Would it be meaningful to you to participate while a prayer to Allah is offered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 yes, but the point here is instead of mandating it to be non-denominational or offering other students of different faiths to pray after that or something, they've just banned speech altogether. Just playing the contrarian here. . .but. . .that is not really what they are doing. It isn't that they are banning speech, they can say what ever they want, they are baning prayer. What about the people that are of no denomination? Do they not participate? Again, we are talking about public funds, private schools are still allowed to do what they want. If you think that prayer before a game is something that you can't live without, you can send your child to a private school. If, on the other hand, you did not want you child to be exposed to prayer, then it would not be an option if they allowed it. that is a violation of the 1st amendment, and a classic example of the legislative judiciary. If congress "shall make no law regarding" religion, why should the judiciary be able to when its power is derived from the legislature? It is not a violation of free speech, just as yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a violation either. You are still allowed to yell fire, as you are still allowed to pray, you can even do it individually, you are just not allowed to do it as a team because of the use of public funds. and quite frankly I think people need to lighten up: hearing a prayer for the safety of the players over the PA or in the locker room is not that big a deal, and people need to be less confrontational and asshatted when it comes to things like this; conservatives and liberals alike. As I mentioned I do believe that goes too far, and it is why you will still see colleges, as well as professional teams doing it. It is part of tradition more than anything else. I would rather them exercise on the side of being fair to everyone though instead of a select few or even worse to a majority, because that is how you cause separation in our society, and I agree more with the together approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 and quite frankly I think people need to lighten up: hearing a prayer for the safety of the players over the PA or in the locker room is not that big a deal, and people need to be less confrontational and asshatted when it comes to things like this; conservatives and liberals alike. Hearing the prayer is not the problem I have. My problem is if you allow a christian prayer, you also have to allow a Jewish prayer, a Muslim prayer, Buddhist, Shintoist, etc... It is just not fair in the least to broadcast one religious prayer over the loudspeaker. As for the safety thing. You don't need to bring God into hoping that a good, clean, safe game is played. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Hearing the prayer is not the problem I have. My problem is if you allow a christian prayer, you also have to allow a Jewish prayer, a Muslim prayer, Buddhist, Shintoist, etc... It is just not fair in the least to broadcast one religious prayer over the loudspeaker. As for the safety thing. You don't need to bring God into hoping that a good, clean, safe game is played. :2cents: ahh, but good sir, you contradict yourself. you say the prayer is not the issue, and then you put in your two cents at the end. honestly, will you imidiately get angry, and be upset to the point of physical harm over hearing a prayer? does hearing a prayer cause you physicall harm or infringe upon your own liberty (liberty, not your own interpretation of civil rights.)? then I'm affraid you have no right to restrict the liberty of the individual and/or crowd expressing their religious beliefs and concrens over the safety of players at a game through prayer. individuals are NOT required to participate, nor are they required to listen, one may plug their ears if they are that irrantional. and in certaint cases I'm sure people who are so put off by the policy may petition to have other prayers included or have it struck down on a LOCAL LEVEL as was intended by the founding fathers, not to have 9 people out of 300 million dictate what is and is not appropriate speech. self government 101.and if you actually read what I had said, you would have seen that that is exactly what i said, "instead of banning speech, why not give opportunites for people of different faiths to present their own prayers?" while I think thats ridiculous in of itself, its a hell of a lot more constitutional than banning religious speech. maybe I'm opening a can of worms, so heres what I'd like you to respond to: I believe I'm right, I believe you're wrong, you're entitled to your opinion as long as you don't infringe on my freedom, and likewise so am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 just before I retype this, I'm sorry chom, I had a really good response going and it got deleted so bear with me Just playing the contrarian here. . .but. . .that is not really what they are doing. It isn't that they are banning speech, they can say what ever they want, they are baning prayer. What about the people that are of no denomination? Do they not participate? no one (and certaintly not me) advocates forcing people to participate. as I have said, Engle V. Vitale is a descision I nearly 100% agree with.Again, we are talking about public funds, private schools are still allowed to do what they want. If you think that prayer before a game is something that you can't live without, you can send your child to a private school. If, on the other hand, you did not want you child to be exposed to prayer, then it would not be an option if they allowed it. my response on this was really good before, I'll see if I can remember my train of thought. Public Schools and Public School sponsored athletics are not the same things in regard to the Lemon V. Kurtzman 3 part test. I believe there is a federal circuit court ruling upholding this, but I can't cite it off the top of my head. If you wish I can research it and come back to you with a conformation. the reasoning behind this is two-part: a) public school sporting events are run with a mixture of private and public funds, these funds are not considered purely public, and because of wording in Lemon V. Kurtzman, private/public funds do not apply. there is a difference between public schools and sporting events. public school sponsored sporting events are attendable by any person that wishes to do so and has the measley 6 bucks required for addmission available to them. because anyone can attend, it is a general public event. in order to attend school, you must be a certaint age and live in a certaint area, 13-18 and in a district for high school. and since high schools are nearly 100% public funds and are exclusive in who can attend, Lemon V. Kurtzman applies. in addition, in other state codes and applicable laws, it is clear that the government cannot regulate behaviors or other things nearly as much as they can in public schools. I'm sorry thats not as coherent or complete as my first response that got deleted. please just glean the idea behind it rather than the actual wording if you can. It is not a violation of free speech, just as yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a violation either. You are still allowed to yell fire, as you are still allowed to pray, you can even do it individually, you are just not allowed to do it as a team because of the use of public funds. thats the most butchered explanation of Schenck V. United States I think I've seen in a while. this ruling does not in anyway have anything to do with public funds, nor with undesired speech. the ruling prevents speech that would bring about, "clear and present danger". this is known (rather clichedly) as the clear and present danger rule. to quote Justice Oliver Holmes The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. you are not allowed to yell fire, only as long as your intent is to harm individuals, you may yell fire if there is in fact some sort of reason to justify this in the interest of safety. and I'm not quite sure what the whole groups reference is about. As I mentioned I do believe that goes too far, and it is why you will still see colleges, as well as professional teams doing it. It is part of tradition more than anything else. I would rather them exercise on the side of being fair to everyone though instead of a select few or even worse to a majority, because that is how you cause separation in our society, and I agree more with the together approach. I agree with you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVUforREDSKINS Posted May 21, 2008 Author Share Posted May 21, 2008 Just watched those Haggared clips. BTW, Larry Craig is completely heterosexual :laugh::laugh::laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIsLFjWCTsk&NR=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 just before I retype this, I'm sorry chom, I had a really good response going and it got deleted so bear with me no one (and certaintly not me) advocates forcing people to participate. as I have said, Engle V. Vitale is a descision I nearly 100% agree with. my response on this was really good before, I'll see if I can remember my train of thought. Public Schools and Public School sponsored athletics are not the same things in regard to the Lemon V. Kurtzman 3 part test. I believe there is a federal circuit court ruling upholding this, but I can't cite it off the top of my head. If you wish I can research it and come back to you with a conformation. the reasoning behind this is two-part: a) public school sporting events are run with a mixture of private and public funds, these funds are not considered purely public, and because of wording in Lemon V. Kurtzman, private/public funds do not apply. there is a difference between public schools and sporting events. public school sponsored sporting events are attendable by any person that wishes to do so and has the measley 6 bucks required for addmission available to them. because anyone can attend, it is a general public event. in order to attend school, you must be a certaint age and live in a certaint area, 13-18 and in a district for high school. and since high schools are nearly 100% public funds and are exclusive in who can attend, Lemon V. Kurtzman applies. in addition, in other state codes and applicable laws, it is clear that the government cannot regulate behaviors or other things nearly as much as they can in public schools. As I said, I agree with you here, I was just taking a contrarian point of view I can see the argument, and I really don't think it harms anyone else to say a prayer before the game. Your argument is quite well, and I think you pose a good case as to why it should be allowed. As I said before, I will almost always stay on the side of equal footing to everyone, but in this instance, I actually agree that they went too far with banning it from pre game ceremonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 As I said, I agree with you here, I was just taking a contrarian point of view I can see the argument, and I really don't think it harms anyone else to say a prayer before the game. Your argument is quite well, and I think you pose a good case as to why it should be allowed. As I said before, I will almost always stay on the side of equal footing to everyone, but in this instance, I actually agree that they went too far with banning it from pre game ceremonies. Thanks I always enjoy sparing with you on an intellectual level. I think it's interesting that both of us can have such different opinions and come away from a discussion satisfied, when many people in the same position could not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.