Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2006, 05:34 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

Just kidding. I wonder what would happen if the word "Allah" or "Muhammed" were exchanged for "Jesus" in the story below.

Bot


Court upholds "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" student banner
Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:28 PM ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - An Alaska high school violated a student's free speech rights by suspending him after he unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" across the street from the school, a federal court ruled on Friday.

Joseph Frederick, a student at Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska, displayed the banner -- which refers to smoking marijuana -- in January 2002 to try to get on television as the Olympic torch relay was passing the school.

Principal Deborah Morse seized the banner and suspended the 18-year-old for 10 days, saying he had undermined the school's educational mission and anti-drug stance.

Friday's ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a decision by a federal court in Alaska that backed Frederick's suspension and said his rights were not violated.

The appeals court said the banner was protected speech because it did not disrupt school activity and was displayed off school grounds during a non-curricular activity.

"Public schools are instrumentalities of government, and government is not entitled to suppress speech that undermines whatever missions it defines for itself," Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in the court's opinion.

The court also cleared the way for Frederick to seek damages, saying Morse was aware of relevant case law and should have known her actions violated his rights.

Botnst is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-10-2006, 05:58 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
old300D's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2003
Vehicle: '83 240D
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,774
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

fffffffffffffttttt.........

aaaahhhhhhhhh.

OBK #35

old300D is offline  
post #3 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-11-2006, 02:36 AM
slightly creased
 
420 SE's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2005
Vehicle: 1988 420 SE; 2015 ML 400
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, AUS & Doha, Qatar
Posts: 16,177
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 136 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

Wheres Nutz4Benz???

Ross

OzBenz

beware of fundamentalists

420 SE is offline  
post #4 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-11-2006, 05:45 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Mar 2004
Vehicle: W203 modified
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 2,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via MSN to miroj Send a message via Skype™ to miroj
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

Try doing it in Utah.

Modz ... enjoy the difference. www.benzmodz.com
miroj is offline  
post #5 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-13-2006, 09:37 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Samurai1833's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jun 2003
Vehicle: 2006 E500, 2013 S550 and a retired 88 SDL
Location: Florida
Posts: 424
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

In America we do enjoy certain unalienable rights. The right to be an asshole is not among them.

"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."
Samurai1833 is offline  
post #6 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-13-2006, 09:43 AM
AMSOIL300CDT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Mentioned: Post(s)
Quoted: Post(s)
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

very correct.....the broad should pay......[:D]
post #7 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-13-2006, 11:18 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Check Codes's Avatar
 
Date registered: Mar 2005
Vehicle: '01-E320 & 02-ST2
Location: John 15:18-19
Posts: 31,634
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

In a similar vein, some of you may remember a few years ago when Andres Serrano created what he called "art" by displaying a picture of Jesus on the Cross in a jar of Serrano's urine (some opined it also contained Serrano's blood). Although some evangelicals decried the display and -- particularly -- were appalled that tax dollars were used for the disgusting display, that was about it, although apparently there were some attempts to damage or destroy the work itself.

Query: Had the picture instead related to Islam instead of Christianity, would Serrano still be alive? How about the officials who approved the work's display? Would the museum that displayed the work still be standing? Would people have died from riots and displays in the City?

Just wondering...
Check Codes is offline  
post #8 of 14 (permalink) Old 03-13-2006, 11:46 AM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
RE: Christians go berserk, threaten to kill anybody wearing sacriligious t-shirt

Too easy a punching bag.
Shane is offline  
post #9 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 08:17 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Terry Eagleton

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins · Bantam, 406 pp, £20.00
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.

Dawkins on God is rather like those right-wing Cambridge dons who filed eagerly into the Senate House some years ago to non-placet Jacques Derrida for an honorary degree. Very few of them, one suspects, had read more than a few pages of his work, and even that judgment might be excessively charitable. Yet they would doubtless have been horrified to receive an essay on Hume from a student who had not read his Treatise of Human Nature. There are always topics on which otherwise scrupulous minds will cave in with scarcely a struggle to the grossest prejudice. For a lot of academic psychologists, it is Jacques Lacan; for Oxbridge philosophers it is Heidegger; for former citizens of the Soviet bloc it is the writings of Marx; for militant rationalists it is religion.

What, one wonders, are Dawkins’s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case? Dawkins, it appears, has sometimes been told by theologians that he sets up straw men only to bowl them over, a charge he rebuts in this book; but if The God Delusion is anything to go by, they are absolutely right. As far as theology goes, Dawkins has an enormous amount in common with Ian Paisley and American TV evangelists. Both parties agree pretty much on what religion is; it’s just that Dawkins rejects it while Oral Roberts and his unctuous tribe grow fat on it.

A molehill of instances out of a mountain of them will have to suffice. Dawkins considers that all faith is blind faith, and that Christian and Muslim children are brought up to believe unquestioningly. Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that. For mainstream Christianity, reason, argument and honest doubt have always played an integral role in belief. (Where, given that he invites us at one point to question everything, is Dawkins’s own critique of science, objectivity, liberalism, atheism and the like?) Reason, to be sure, doesn’t go all the way down for believers, but it doesn’t for most sensitive, civilised non-religious types either. Even Richard Dawkins lives more by faith than by reason. We hold many beliefs that have no unimpeachably rational justification, but are nonetheless reasonable to entertain. Only positivists think that ‘rational’ means ‘scientific’. Dawkins rejects the surely reasonable case that science and religion are not in competition on the grounds that this insulates religion from rational inquiry. But this is a mistake: to claim that science and religion pose different questions to the world is not to suggest that if the bones of Jesus were discovered in Palestine, the pope should get himself down to the dole queue as fast as possible. It is rather to claim that while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself.

Dawkins holds that the existence or non-existence of God is a scientific hypothesis which is open to rational demonstration. Christianity teaches that to claim that there is a God must be reasonable, but that this is not at all the same thing as faith. Believing in God, whatever Dawkins might think, is not like concluding that aliens or the tooth fairy exist. God is not a celestial super-object or divine UFO, about whose existence we must remain agnostic until all the evidence is in. Theologians do not believe that he is either inside or outside the universe, as Dawkins thinks they do. His transcendence and invisibility are part of what he is, which is not the case with the Loch Ness monster. This is not to say that religious people believe in a black hole, because they also consider that God has revealed himself: not, as Dawkins thinks, in the guise of a cosmic manufacturer even smarter than Dawkins himself (the New Testament has next to nothing to say about God as Creator), but for Christians at least, in the form of a reviled and murdered political criminal. The Jews of the so-called Old Testament had faith in God, but this does not mean that after debating the matter at a number of international conferences they decided to endorse the scientific hypothesis that there existed a supreme architect of the universe – even though, as Genesis reveals, they were of this opinion. They had faith in God in the sense that I have faith in you. They may well have been mistaken in their view; but they were not mistaken because their scientific hypothesis was unsound.

Much much more at: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
Botnst is offline  
post #10 of 14 (permalink) Old 10-20-2006, 10:12 PM
~BANNED~
 
deathrattle's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jan 2005
Vehicle: 1992 W126 300 SE
Location: Head in the clouds
Posts: 11,045
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
^^^^^

What a load of pedantic twaddle dressed up as intellectual argument. Dawkins' position is really quite simple: Describe the universe by observation, measurement and experiment-or by blind faith. If you choose the latter then you are subject to all the ritualistic dogma and superstition that goes with it. 'You pays your money and makes your choice'. Notwithstanding that, Dawkins likes to sell a few books and needs to fill them with something.

I'm looking forward to reading Paul Davies' new book 'The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?'
deathrattle is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome