Free Republic

LOL - yup, ACME always delivers fast! : )

They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves.

You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice.

But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.

That may be a philosophical difference you have with people who would take the time to ask their newspapers not to carry columns they don't like. But once again, it's not censorship. Consumers have a right to complain about products they buy. Media owners can decide whether or not they want to listen and heed those complaints. As long as the government isn't involved, it's not censorship.

There was never an ounce of remorse expressed by Clinton.

I don't want to be the one to defend Clinton here, but this just isn't true. You may not have believed him, but he did express remorse.

http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/impeachment/apology.shtml

What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds. I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family. Quite simply, I gave into my shame. I have been condemned by my accusers with harsh words. And while it's hard to hear yourself called deceitful and manipulative, I remember Ben Franklin's admonition that our critics are our friends, for they do show us our faults. Mere words cannot fully express the profound remorse I feel for what our country is going through, and for what members of both parties in Congress are now forced to deal with. [...]

My point was that in the original post, the poster said that other biblical leaders had great moral failings and were still great leaders with respect to Gingrich. I was just pointing out that the same criterion would also apply to Clinton.

And, oh yes, by the way he also had an affair, just like Newt did. But Clinton did it in the Oval Office and with an intern who worked for him.

And Gingrich did it with a woman who was married to someone else. And he also did it with a member of his Congressional staff. I don't see Gingrich grabbing the moral high ground here.

Even here on FR there are many who do not under stand that political correctness has stopped people from saying what they really believe for fear of losing their means to make a living.

This may be true, but it's still not a Freedom of Speech issue (as in US government). People are allowed to say anything politically incorrect they want. Employers are allowed to fire employees for not espousing the views they wish. That's the way the market works. If there are enough people out there who care about politically correct speech, and if newspapers or TV broadcasters want to pander to them, that's their right. If they want to print the politically incorrect view and risk alienating their reader/viewership, that's their right, too. Ann Coulter has no free speech issue here. She made a statement that was within her rights. Some of her employers didn't like what she said and dropped her. That's the market at work, not a Free Speech issue.

Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.

Well, if you look at it like that, sure. I was referring to Freedom of Speech as defined by American law, not the overall concept. Which means that it's the the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment from the government. Any other punishment - losing her job, losing her credibiliy, whatever, has nothing to do with the government. And therefore, as far as I'm concerned, has nothing to do with Free Speech. Again, I am looking at it from a legal point of view - otherwise, you could just as easily say that the Dixie Chicks were denied Free Speech rights by Clear Channel.

And of course her joke has been proved highly accurate by the response it has gotten -- from boneheads like you.

Nice insult. When all else fails, resort to ad hominem, huh? It's a shame you can't debate in a civilized manner, but hey, there you are. If JR decides to ban you from the forum (I didn't complain, btw) for inappropriate posting, it wouldn't be a Free Speech issue either. Maybe you can point to the response that I gave that makes her joke "proved highly accurate." How about it? Hint: She can say what she likes. People can choose to hire her if they like. The government isn't enforcing political correctness - so again, it's not a Free Speech issue.

Should be end MLK Day as a national holiday since he was an adulterer?

No. My only point in responding to that last post is that you can't say that moral failings only count for Clinton, but not for Gingrich...

I know - I was trying to respond in South Park fashion! (Sheila Broslofski)

It can very quickly become one, with the media grooming the public to sit still for laws that ban speech that the left doesn't like.

If those laws come up, then it's a Free Speech issue. If the media expresses an opinion about something, it may be repugnant, but again, it's not a Free Speech issue. This Ann Coulter flap has absolutley nothing to do with Free Speech.

That may be a problem, but it's still not a Free Speech issue.

This too is true. However the idea that there is a significant number of fundamentalist Christians who actually believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally is just as absurd. ;-)

Actually, I do believe there are a fair amount of bible literalists out there - even on this site, for that matter. But I agree with you - most Christians don't believe in a literal reading of the events in the bible. Which is another reason why I don't think it's a big deal if the stories in the bible are taught as myth as opposed to calling them fact.

Whatwhatwhat? : )

The idea that somehow science and religion are at odds is absurd.

This is true. However, the idea that science is at odds with a literal reading of the bible is clearly not absurd.

This has nothing to do with Free Speech. Coulter isn't being prosecuted by the government. She has the right to say what she wants, and others have the right to complain, boycott, or whatever. It wasn't a Free Speech issue when Freepers boycotted the Dixie Chicks, and it isn't a Free Speech issue now.

My issue with Clinton...and by the way...my Democratic dad's isue...was that as the chief law enforcement officer of our country he should face whatever charges went with lying under oath.

I agree with this. But you just said that those bibical characters were heroes, though flawed human beings.David: Adulterer and Murderer Peter: Lied three times, after pledging his undying devotion the previous day. Moses: Murderer. So Clinton's flaw was lying under oath - that certainly doesn't rise to the level of being a murderer. You said, "If you think that because Newt had a moral failing that he is unfit to lead...you better take another look at the Bible." How does that not apply to Clinton as well?

I personally don't think Clinton or Gingrich have any business running for office after what they have shown themselves capable of.

Only that the God of the Bible is a myth since the things that it says that He did is a myth. Right?

I'm not sure I understand the distinction. God can certainly be responsible for biblical myths that teach us something, right?

There are many reasons to believe that the Christian flood story is less mythical than any other religious flood story.

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. There are numerous scientific problems that don't get resolved if you believe the entire earth was flooded with water. If you are saying that science doesn't matter because it was a miracle, then we're back to the Christian flood story being basically like any other religious flood story. If you believe that everything in the bible is literally true, and that there are no myths in there, that's another thing we would have to agree to disagree on. I don't believe that, nor do I believe such should be taught in public schools.

And lest we forget, according to Gingrich, oral sex doesn't count. In .Vanity Fair (September 1995), they mentioned Anne Manning, who had an affair in Washington in 1977 with a married Gingrich.

"We had oral sex," Manning revealed. "He prefers that modus operandi because then he can say, 'I never slept with her.'" She added that Gingrich threatened her: "If you ever tell anybody about this, I'll say you're lying."

BTW, Gingrich has since refused to comment on Manning's charges...

I said that teaching it as myth is no better.

I think that for a lot of stories, you have to make the choice. Was there a flood a few thousand years ago that killed off almost everyone? Did Moses actually part the Red Sea or see a burning bush that didn't extinguish itself? Sorry, I think most people view those as myth. Are they part of a larger structure that may impart larger lessons? Possibly, and that should be explored. But again, the bible shouldn't be used as a textbook - it's a book of old stories that many people consider to be relevent to themselves today. If you are going to teach the bible as literature, one of things you do is to look at myths from other religions and cultures and see how they compare to myths in Christianity. For instance, most cultures have a "great flood that destroyed the world" myth that are similar to eachother. Is that proof that there was a flood that destroyed the world? No - most early civilizations lived near water, and pretty much any large body of water will have a large flood at some point. One has to acknowledge that there is no reason to believe that the Christian flood story is any less mythical as any other religious flood story, if one wants to be even-handed in teaching a subject like this. So, yes, I do believe that treating biblical stories as myth is better than teaching them as fact. This doesn't mean that the teacher has to say that God is a myth, or that Christianity is wrong. But he should treat the text like he would any other non-Christian religious text in terms of truth value.

Correct, but it's no better to teach it as myth than it is to teach it as fact.

I disagree. Treating any religious text as fact is ridiculous in (non-religious) schools. Most Christians don't even believe in a completely literal translation of the bible and that everything in it is fact. Stories evolve, translations alter and memories fade. The bible should be treated as a book that is greatly significant to a large percentage of the population and important because of that. But not as a textbook that states facts.

This would be a good start, but in teaching the Bible as literature, I'm sure the school systems will also teach it as myth.

You would rather the school system teach a particular version of religion as fact?

You know...all of the judgemental attitudes are hypocritical. Let's look at Bible heroes and I do mean that they were heroes, though flawed human beings. David: Adulterer and Murderer Peter: Lied three times, after pledging his undying devotion the previous day. Moses: Murderer I could go on...but these men were not just Biblical heroes, they were LEADERS, annointed by God. If you think that because Newt had a moral failing that he is unfit to lead...you better take another look at the Bible.

Were you saying the same thing during the Clinton impeachment?