Posted on 01/05/2005 7:12:17 AM PST by dead
President Bush wants 'pro-homosexual' drama banned.
This statement in the sub-heading is not supported any where in the article. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
By the end of his article, he drags out the trite and shopworn Nazi analogy. Lazy, incompetent, and inflammatory journalism, in the extreme.
Why would any British person buy a newspaper that just makes things up?
It’s a sign of desperation on the left when they have to lie so blatantly.
They know that refusing to purchase something with taxpayer funds is not “banning” it.
"Why would any British person buy a newspaper that just makes things up?"
Because many of them think it's all true. Even if one particular article is wrong, it still reinforces and informs their liberal view of the world and is therefore ok.
Denying federal funding is not "banning books". It is a matter of separation of church and state. People have a right to have differing moral and religious views on homosexuality, and the government has no right to impose the liberal moral and religious viewpoint on others.
As far as I'm concerned, you can dig a hole and dump the pink triangles in it as well, thank you.
If my kids are going off to college to re-enact "Angels in America", I want my money back. Scenes of sodomites begging their leather clad partners to "go ahead and infect me" do not qualify as entertainment in my book.
Agreed. However, on the same token, the government has no right to impose the conservative moral and religious viewpoint on others either. At the risk of sounding like a liberal (this is more the libertarian side of me), government should stay out of morality and religious issues as much as possible.
At the risk of sounding like a liberal (this is more the libertarian side of me), government should stay out of morality and religious issues as much as possible.
And the government should certainly not be in the business of funding any theater with money confiscated from its citizens under the threat of imprisonment for non-payment.
I think most Christians would be happy for a government that is neutral. It is the gay activists who are using the government to impose their views on society, through civil same sex "marriage" and gay propaganda in the public schools.
This guy denies the existence of homosexual propaganda in public school library books?
Is this the same Guardian that helped get kerry elected. Chuckle........
Not necessarily saying I disagree here. Just playing devil's advocate in pointing out . . . who is pushing for prayer in schools and the Ten Commandments to be displayed?
That’s a frequently heard proposition. But it ignores the fact that everything the government does (or at least should be doing) is from moral motivations. Imprison a criminal because it’s immoral to commit crimes. Put out a fire because it’s immoral to allow your stuff to burn.
Morality is simply a collection of principles to help us live our lives. Those principles can be religious, fashion or reason based. The government is prohibited only from promoting religious based morals because they can conflict and can’t be resolved through reason.
If homosexuals want government schools to purchase books that promote their lifestyle, let them argue the case through reason. But since I’ve yet to hear much more than emotion based attempts to compare it to the right to be black, I’m not placing my bets on their success.
Pushing for?
Those things were stripped away via legal terrorism by the ACLU and judicial activism. Now Christians are facing felony charges "hate crime" for quoting scripture in public.
If you want on/off the list let me know.
The media never tells the truth.
Let me rephrase . . . pushing for the return of prayer in schools and the displaying the Ten Commandments.
Muahahaha - one of the quickest and easiest ways to get rich is to get people to pay you in exchange for telling them what they want to hear. I'm thinking of starting a newspaper myself ;)
"Christians are facing felony charges "hate crime" for quoting scripture in public."
Where?
First, it's state funding, not federal. And that's a big difference. It would mean public libraries would have to get rid of books that didn't conform to Allen's ideological test (because the public libraries get state funds, and it costs money to run a library). In effect, it would ban those books from public libraries.
People have a right to have differing moral and religious views on homosexuality, and the government has no right to impose the liberal moral and religious viewpoint on others.
You think the government is imposing something on you because the local public library has a copy of Cat on a Hot In Roof? And why doesn't the government have the right to impose the pro-homosexual view on bigots like you? You're claiming it has the right to impose an anti-homosexual view by denying funding for public libraries that don't conform ideologically--why shouldn't it be able to ban the opposite instead?
Why shouldn't the government be able to ban funding for any library that contains hate literature like the Bible?
Maybe you should learn to value our freedom before idiots like you take it away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.