dominicansoul Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 well, Kitty can express her opinions... especially since this thread is about "freedom of speech." and so can I... in my humble opinion, the graph displays ignorance and complete stupidity...so I did not laugh, because to me ignorance and stupidity are NOT funny... unless you are a Bill Maher fan... and who cares??? The Dominicans were founded during the "Dark ages..." (we Dominicans do not like to use that terminology...as it is completely worldy and does not reflect the Church at that time...) the mere fact that one man, St. Dominic would be so inspired to do something about the ignorance and stupidity of heresy at that time should tells us the HOLY SPIRIT was a'movin' and improvin' life back then... and in regards to freedom of speech, ironically, Resurrexi should be able to practice that without getting the whole board criticizing his one statement... as should Kitty, who surprisingly received more support than Resurrexi did...
dominicansoul Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 ...and sadly, I think in today's conditions in the church, St. Dominic would have a much more tougher time....than in the "dark ages..." i think we are living the darkest age man has ever seen...
picchick Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='dominicansoul' post='1889556' date='Jun 13 2009, 05:02 AM']well, Kitty can express her opinions... especially since this thread is about "freedom of speech." and so can I... in my humble opinion, the graph displays ignorance and complete stupidity...so I did not laugh, because to me ignorance and stupidity are NOT funny... unless you are a Bill Maher fan... and who cares??? The Dominicans were founded during the "Dark ages..." (we Dominicans do not like to use that terminology...as it is completely worldy and does not reflect the Church at that time...) the mere fact that one man, St. Dominic would be so inspired to do something about the ignorance and stupidity of heresy at that time should tells us the HOLY SPIRIT was a'movin' and improvin' life back then... and in regards to freedom of speech, ironically, Resurrexi should be able to practice that without getting the whole board criticizing his one statement... as should Kitty, who surprisingly received more support than Resurrexi did... [/quote] Because Rex was serious and Kitty was not. I don't know how laughing at a joke is considered support and taking someone seriously is not. But whatevs.
sweens8403 Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1887715' date='Jun 10 2009, 11:19 AM']...most haven't thought about the conclusions of their beliefs.[/quote] See, that's exactly what I always thought about folks who support detestable things like abortion, pornography and the like. Abortion - kills the child & emotionally/physically scars the mother forever Pornography - destroys the innocence of women and enslaves men Fornication - destroys healthy marriages or prevents healthy ones from forming Sodomy - at the very least it violates the natural law of nature, no life comes from this union. (Even the un-churched should oppose this on the basis of evolution since it hinders the continuation of the species) Shall I go on? The Church condemns these behaviors in order to protect us from their destructive effects, not to be a killjoy. These evils have flourished in a culture which believes in complete free speech. As Socrates said on the first page, laws protecting free speech were put in place by our founding fathers primarily to preserve the people's ability to speak freely concerning political matters. During the colonial era people were routinely thrown in jail for "speaking against the crown".
Didymus Posted June 13, 2009 Posted June 13, 2009 We also have to remember, however, that the right to free speech was itself never put into place or created by the Constitution. It was merely acknowledged by the Constitution as a coming from our Creator. It sounds kinda ridiculous when I hear someone say "I believe there [i]should/shouldn't[/i] be a right to free speech, to assemble, etc." Either those rights exist or they do not. The government cannot give or take away anyone any rights. Corporations cannot give or take away rights. These large entities can only acknowledge or fail to acknowledge rights that we have inherent within us as human beings.
Ziggamafu Posted June 18, 2009 Posted June 18, 2009 [quote name='sweens8403' post='1889652' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:41 AM'](Even the un-churched should oppose this on the basis of evolution since it hinders the continuation of the species)[/quote] This is actually quite a powerful argument to an atheist; not in that it will make a gay person straight, but that it makes complete sense. From a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality is like cancer - it is an abnormal defect that acts as a population control. In other words, the argument proves that, even from a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality is only "right" in the negative sense that cancer is "right". But it is not the healthy, evolutionary ideal. It is "less than". It is a defect.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now