Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yendu bwam
You are jumping back and forth between two arguments...and throwing in a whole bunch of lies in between...like the one where you can't quote the Bible in public anymore...do a Google on the words television radio broadcasts religious programming.

One argument is that the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is wrong, and that this man just wanted to spread the Bible's message.

The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across.

Well...why?

If the Bible is so clear in its message (which it is), what possible need did he have to add graphics, other than to insult, inflamme, and create strife.

It seems that he got his wish.

So what's the problem?
183 posted on 02/13/2003 5:50:35 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez
The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across. Well...why?

I, as well as the founders of these United States, believe(d) that men are entitled to the freedom to say what they believe. You do not. Most of what we want to say does not come from the Bible. Surely you are not saying (well, actually you are implying) that it's alright to quote the Bible, but not to express anything else that one believes, if it offends someone, or if the government has deemed it offensive. In these United States, I am free to publish an ad (with or without Bible verses) stating my opposition to or promotion of homosexual acts, abortion, bestiality, divorce, affirmative action, homosexual scoutmasters, high taxes, putting 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. In Canada, one is not. The base line is this. You don't like what this man was saying, and therefore you have the right to squelch his speech. You're the kind who would have been happy sitting at the head of the Politburo. People who believe in the squelching of free speech are fundamentally insecure. Win your arguments on the basis of free and fair debate - not on tyrannical autocratic measures to shut down the speech of those you disagree with. You have no more right to shut down my speech (or this man's speech) than I yours.

185 posted on 02/13/2003 6:07:10 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
So what's the problem?

Same thing Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Napolean, Somoza, Castro, Qaddafi, and so forth said (or say), when they tell (or told) their citizens what was acceptable to say and what was not. Why should your ability to voice your beliefs be favored over someone else's? I don't think it should - and neither did our founding fathers.

187 posted on 02/13/2003 6:11:01 PM PST by yendu bwam (The other is that he has a right to add anything to the words of the Bible to get his message across)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson