Blogcritics: Comments on I Find Freedom To Be Offensive!

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:42:54 EST

carruthers had it right in comment #1

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:36:30 EST

MEGO! Flanagan has no idea when to just shut up and move on. Now I remember the word... It's hypocrite! Your behaviour is profoundly hypocritical. No big surprise. David Flanagan

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 21:31:15 EST

aw cripes, i've got nothing more to say about this topic. but about catholic schools....they weren't great at teaching about other religions...but they did have catholic schoolgirls. oh yea....

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 19:17:57 EST

MEGO! Flanagan has no idea when to just shut up and move on.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:31:48 EST

...forces taxpayers to spend money to defend something that is patently unconstitutional. Mac, So, would it then be okay for private organizations to spend their own money to erect statues and memorials of religious significance? Many of the public monuments with religious significance that are being ordered removed because of ACLU lawsuits were funded by private organizations and put in public parks. Can't the people of this nation express themselves freely in the public square as well as on their personal property? If we are a nation that values the freedom of religion, which, historically, we have been for our entire history, then why can't our art and literature reflect those values? And you still have not answered my post outlining another example of state descrimination against religious organizations using "separation of church and state" in a lame excuse to deny religious freedom. There's a word for people who accuse people of not doing what they themselves refuse to do. Or do you follow that old adage of "do as I say, not as I do?" David Flanagan

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:31:36 EST

As Meryl Yourish said, I do indeed rock. Now, go, and sin no more.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:19:36 EST

Information is a good thing. Mac, You seem more a master of disinformation to me. I guess its only good information if you agree with it, otherwise, its to be banned, censored, or, at the very least, berated. Rock on Ms. Diva. David Flanagan

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:14:06 EST

heck, i went to catholic school and knew almost nothing about other religions. Mark, I didn't go to Catholic school but I did go to CCD (Catholic sunday school for the "non-believer" ;-) and I agree with you. My education came during college when I began to attend a small liberal arts college. No offense to Catholics (of which, I am no longer one), but the Catholic church doesn't do a great job of teaching members about the Catholic faith much less any other. David Flanagan

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 18:05:21 EST

Addendum to first issue: Flanagan would make a poor lawyer. His evasions are too obvious. Separate posts and he is still stepping right into the trap he set for himself by claiming he supports equal treatment of all religions. Trying to convert 'Satanism' into 'Wicca' is particularly shoddy. Duh. But, I believe we are missing the overall point. Government does not exist to promote any religion, singular or plural. Furthermore, our tax dollars are limited. Better that we spend that money on providing services to the public than erecting religious symbols of any kind. It is a shame that Christian fundamentalists have made putting up religious iconography on government property a national campaign in areas where they grab domination of local governments. That forces taxpayers to spend money to defend something that is patently unconstitutional. Sadly, many of those local governments are in the Deep South, where people are particularly poor. Instead of spending money on food, healthcare or education, the Christian fundamentalist dominated boards and councils spend it on defending posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms or putting religious sculptures in parks. That is a sin. Jesus would weep.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:48:50 EST

Mark, we had those at the Quaker school I attended. And, it was good for us in the long run. We learned at least the rudiments of the major world religions and how the variations on Christianity developed. Some of us became curious enough to take comparative religion classes in college as a result, which I agree with Eric about. Information is a good thing. (Lord knows, I didn't become religious, just reasonably well-informed.) But, not everyone believes information is a good thing. Notice how our far Right Christian fundamentalist has already twisted the meaning of the word while claiming to support something he doesn't. In the blink of an eye equal treatment of all religions has been burdened with a duty not to offend his extremist notions about being a Christian. To be acceptable, 'information' is not to be a mockery of Christianity, which would mean banning anything he and his heroes -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robeson, that clown in Alabama, etc. -- don't like.

Comment by Dwaine AKA Scooter AKA D.J.

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:45:27 EST

Al and MD sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G, first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Little Al in a baby carriage, But that's not all, that's not all, here comes the baby on alcohol!

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:43:02 EST

Everybody knows Foghorn Leghorn ain't a chicken, he's a loud-mouth schnook! And Al should know this because he's a chicken-hawk.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:27:03 EST

I agree entirely. I took comparative religion classes in college and became fascinated: they touch upon philosophy, culture, sociology, and EVERY religion has some insight of use to all.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:01:42 EST

personally, i think it'd be a great idea if more (all?) public schools made available a "Religions Of The World"/comparative religeions class. heck, i went to catholic school and knew almost nothing about other religions.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 14:34:49 EST

i didn't say Wiccan, i said "Satan". Well, I do want to point out that this does go to my point that I care about religious pluralism in this country more than a secularist. The vast majority of people who are accused of being "satanists," are not. Instead, they are Wiccans, which is why I try and show sensitivity to those of the Wiccan religion. For a true satan worshiper who wants to, for example, meet in a public building that is open to other groups to discuss the coming month's worship schedule, I would give you the same answer, the government cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. Now, if they are meeting to sacrifice a cat or something, I would as members of PETA to back me up here when I say I'd have a problem with that. ;-) Honestly, though, this is truly where I stand and I appreciate your questions and the points you've made on this issue. Thanks. David

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:30:39 EST

i didn't say Wiccan, i said "Satan". i believe that you have no trouble with a Wiccan display, but you'd be in the vast minority.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 13:21:37 EST

so mr. flanagan would support/allow a taxpayer-funded display of satan-worship? Actually, I have two good friends who are Wiccans. One of them is a college friend who I've kept in touch with. She is a Dianic Wiccan and is actually a High Priestess in her local order. The other is a co-worker, a Phd who also happens to very close to her due date for having her first child. I don't know what order she is in because I try not to mix politics or religion with work. Now, to answer the question, would I allow a taxpayer funded display of satan worship? Well, most Wiccans would not like the title of Satan worshipper. They worship the "earth-mother," or other titles for nature, or various gods they worship. In that sense, then, taxpayer dollars already go to support those kinds of displays of art through programs such as the National Endowment for The Arts. My concern would be less over religion and more over my own personal tastes. Is the display making a mockery of Christianity? If so, then I have a problem with that and I'm going to speak up about it. Otherwise, people must be allowed to express their faiths. Thanks. David

Comment by Mark Saleski

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 08:59:25 EST

so mr. flanagan would support/allow a taxpayer-funded display of satan-worship? somehow i doubt that.

Comment by Mac Diva

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:42:00 EST

Liar.

Comment by David Flanagan

Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:02:41 EST

You cool with that, Flanagan? I agree with you 100% Al. :-) I would rather see a plurality of religions and faiths rather than the opposite. I am a Christian and I believe that Christianity as both a faith and a worldview can hold its own against any faith. Thanks. David Flanagan

Comment by Al Barger

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 03:16:26 EST

Thanks for your vote of support Superman, but don't worry about Diva being shitty with me. That's just her way of saying 'I love you.'

Comment by superman

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 01:22:51 EST

C'mon, Mac Diva, Al may not agree with you, but you don't have to be condescending to him. And anyway, if the government of green acres would "stay out of the belief system chicken sh!t altogether," one of them would still become dominant and maybe Li'l Red would be at the bottom of the pecking order. Staying out wouldn't make them get along better, necessarily.

Comment by Al Barger

Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:46:49 EST

Perhaps Diva Acres roosters would be hell bent on bullying everyone else into adopting their beliefs, but Barger Road roosters would be rather more inclined to being funky and gettin' down with the hens. And Cock-a-Doodle-Doo [huh, huh- I said "cock"] hanging up a picture of his supreme leader (and Al role model) Foghorn Leghorn would not constitute a threat to his fowl brethren. Indeed, the heavy boot of fascism would actually be coming in when Ol' Macdiva came down from the farmhouse to tear down the tribute to Leghorn.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:43:41 EST

Barger, consider your animals down there on the farm. If you put your little red rooster in charge of all the other chickens in the barnyard, Lil' Red's gonna set up a pecking order based on his fowl beliefs, you know? His potential rival, Cock-A-Doodle-Doo, will likely be targeted right away. Lil' Red will have the other chickens pecking Doodle every chance they get. So, the best thing for you to do, as The Government of green acres, is to stay out of the belief system chicken sh!t altogether. (Aside: I think he might actually understand the issue discussed in terms he can relate to.)

Comment by sam

Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:24:01 EST

That's pretty funny, Al