Freedom of Speech
Although freedom of speech is a good thing because nobody wants to live in a repressive society, do you think it is right to have religious wars on buses? Should people be advertising about God on buses, or advertising there is no God on buses? If you were the bus driver in this story would you refuse to ride a bus that advertised that maybe there is no god so enjoy life anyhow? This link is for information purposes only Buses Are No Places for Religious Wars - Associated Content

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ROLCAM

Freedom of Speech
Although freedom of speech is a good thing because nobody wants to live in a repressive society, do you think it is right to have religious wars on buses? should people be advertising about God on buses, or advertising there is no God on buses? If you were the bus driver in this story would you refuse to ride a bus that advertised that maybe there is no god so enjoy life anyhow? this link is for information purposes only Buses Are No Places for Religious Wars - Associated Content

---

I think that some Christians are making a mountain out of a molehill, but unfortunately their approach could have consequences. For example, if those folk were successful in having the Atheist group banned from advertising their views on buses, then why should Christians have the right to publicity for Christian views, or events? Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone within the limits of decency.

Besides the message that they are putting on the buses is not denying that there is a God, but only says "probably". It could in fact open some doors as a conversation starter to reach some folk with the gospel. All the attention that this ad campaign is being given is only giving more free publicity to the posters.

As for the bus driver in question, I disagree with the stand that he took. By driving the bus, it does not mean that he endorses whatever is advertised on the bus - he is just driving the bus.

ROLCAM,
THANKS FOR THE GOOD QUESTION.
I'm a firm believe in freedom of speech and the press as long as it is decent.
In this case the anti-God people have their say for everyone who rides the bus to see.
It gives the pro-God people and opportunity to discus the subject openly and for others to wonder about what was said and perhaps for the Holy Spirit to being others who had not thought about it to the Lord God.
But, I'm very displeased that the network refused to run a purchased pro-life advertisement during the playing of the Super Bowl,
That is VERY discriminatory.
Both sides of such issued should e allowed to have their say.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Freedom of speech for everyone except atheists!

Why are Christians and Muslims so afraid of comtemplating atheist's words??

Grow up religionists! Freedom is freedom for EVERYONE. Otherwise, you are tyrants.

Best wishes, :)

Choux ,
Who said that freedom of speech was not for atheists?
I certainly did not.
I think that freedom of speech and the press is for everyone.
I know of know one that says No to freedom of speech for atheists.
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

ROLCAM,
THANKS FOR THE GOOD QUESTION.
I’m a firm believe in freedom of speech and the press as long as it is decent.
In this case the anti-God people have their say for everyone who rides the bus to see.
It gives the pro-God people and opportunity to discus the subject openly and for others to wonder about what was said and perhaps for the Holy Spirit to being others who had not thought about it to the Lord God.
But, I'm very displeased that the network refused to run a purchased pro-life advertisement during the playing of the Super Bowl,
That is VERY discriminatory.
Both sides of such issued should e allowed to have their say.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

---

I agree that there should be freedom for ALL religions (or lack of them) to pay for advertising. Of course, the group owning the advertising space should also always have the right to turn ads down--as long as they can justify how they are not being prejudiced in WHICH they turn down (bad taste, swear words, consistently all relgious messages, whatever).

I am PLEASED that the network refused to run a pro-life ad during the Superbowl. I would have boycotted the television station for the rest of my life had they run it. If no one can dictate to another that they must STOP having children (reproductive rights), then no one should be able to dictate that a person that they must HAVE a child either.

I never saw a pro-choice ad during the Superbowl, and just looked to see which commercials were aired during the Superbowl, so NEITHER side had their say.

Again, I don't care who puts up paid advertising, as long as a company that turns DOWN paid advertising can give good justification as to WHY it was turned down.

I have moved this to the religious discussion board.

But sadly I have doubts ROLCOM really cares what we answer his last post after post seem to have no real method with fiew follow ups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arcura

But, I'm very displeased that the network refused to run a purchased pro-life advertisement during the playing of the Super Bowl,
That is VERY discriminatory.

---

Actually it's not. It's a business decision. The network decided not to accept that ad. It's up to them. The pro-life people will need to find a business enterprise that will accept their ad, it's as simple as that.

Yes, freedom of speech would allow this.

But like the bus driver, the individual has the freedom to take a stand for what you believe in. I applaud his decision.



G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Actually it's not. It's a business decision. The network decided not to accept that ad. It's up to them. The pro-life people will need to find a business enterprise that will accept their ad, it's as simple as that.

---

To a degree, I agree. But even in a business decision there are limits. For example, if a restaurant owner in the south of the US decided that it would be good for business to refuse to serve non-whites, it may be a business decision, but is that one that he has the right to make?

I am not arguing one way or another as to the specifics of this particular pro-life ad - I have not seen the details of that story, but I get concerned when I hear things quickly brushed off a "business decisions" because in my life I have seen several un-ethical things done under the guise of a "business decision".

Just something to think about.

Yes it is something to think about.
Ethical decisions usually are.
Fred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

I have moved this to the religious discussion board.

But sadly I have doubts ROLCOM really cares what we answer his last post after post seem to have no real method with fiew follow ups

---

All too true!

Freedom of speech!
But the bus driver also should have the right to place a stack of the f our spiritual laws tracts or something if he wanted to.
I wouldn't let a sign on a bus stop me from doing my job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N0help4u

Freedom of speech!
But the bus driver also should have the right to place a stack of the f our spiritual laws tracts or something if he wanted to.
I wouldn't let a sign on a bus stop me from doing my job.

---

I can see the bus company denying the driver the right to place tracts on the buss, by stating that the atheists paid for their ads, but he did not pay to distribute the tracts. There may also be something in their contract prohibiting this because, wearing the company uniform, it may appear that the company endorses those tracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone within the limits of decency.

---

Hello Tj:

I don't care nothing about busses... I care about the Constitution. You have misquoted it again... But, I'm used to you doing that.

Please show me where your free speech rights are limited by decency. Who decided what's "decent"?

Nahhh, decency AIN'T part of it. You just made that up, like you make up MOST of what you say.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Tj:

I don't care nothing about busses... I care about the Constitution. You have misquoted it again... But, I'm used to you doing that.

---

You appear to have a real obsession about me. I never quoted the constitution of any country in this entire thread.

And if you care about discussing the constitution, I suggest that you go on the legal board and debate your concerns about the constitution. It would have little meaning here since I suspect that you are in a different country than I am in and thus the constitution and the entire legal system that you refer to have no application to me.

Quote:

---

Please show me where your free speech rights are limited by decency. Who decided what's "decent"?

---

Show me in the constitution of my country where your freedom of speech cannot be limited for purposes of decency.

You just made that up, like you make up MOST of what you say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

You appear to have a real obsession about me. Ithe constitution of any country in this entire thread.

And if you care about discussing the constitution, I suggest that you go on the legal board and debate your concerns about the constitution.

Show me in the constitution of my country where your freedom of speech cannot be limited for purposes of decency.

---

Hello again, Tj:

I don't have a problem with YOU personally, Tom. I have a problem with UNTRUTH. If you indulge in it - then I have a problem with YOU.

Let's assume for argument purposes that you're an American, and you're talking about the US Constitution. And, I'd be happy to discuss it with you on the legal boards, but I have a feeling that you won't show... So, I'll do my arguing where you do your misquoting.

Here's the First Amendment in it's entirety:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Now, of course, since I know you're pretty slippery in your English usage, I'm sure you'll tell me that the words "no law" don't mean that at all.

But, it's cool. I'm used to that. And, I'm sure you'll DISMISS me now that you've been had. But, I'm used to that too.

Oh, yeah. That thing about not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater?? That's not a limit on free speech. There ARE no limits on free speech. I'd be happy to argue with you about it, though.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Tj:
I don't have a problem with YOU personally, Tom. I have a problem with UNTRUTH. If you indulge in it - then I have a problem with YOU.

---

Accusing people of untruth every time that they post something, without anything to validate your position is wrong in and of itself. More so when you feel that you have to accuse someone of being wrong about something that they did not even post. That is why it seems like you are obsessed with me.

Quote:

---

Let's assume for argument purposes that you're an American, and you're talking about the US Constitution.

---

I am an American - I live in North America, but not a country under the US Constitution, and again, let me point out that little detail that this is not the "law" board, but the Religious Discussions Board. You may have missed that little detail.

Quote:

---

And, I'd be happy to discuss it with you on the legal boards, but I have a feeling that you won't show...

---

If it was something that mattered to me, but once again, a little tidbit for you - the rest of the world is neither governed by, nor cares much about your country's constitution. Trying to force it down their throats is not going to improve the perceptions that the world has of your country either.

Now if you want to discuss what the Canadian Constitution has to say about this, let me know when you plan to post that on the law board. Oh but you'll probably tell me that you only care about YOUR country and not mine - so why should I care about your country's constitution?

Quote:

---

So, I'll do my arguing where you do your misquoting.

---

You obsession with me again, I see.

BTW, let's get to basics. I don't even know what it is about my position on this matter that you disagree with. I am supporting the right of the Atheist group to post this advertisement - so are you for or against freedom of speech - or just obsessed with me and have to attack me no matter what position I take?

Please clarify exactly where you disagree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for everyone within the limits of decency.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tj3

Please clarify exactly where you disagree with me.

---

Hello again, Tj:

Has nothing to do with YOU. Has everything to do with your information.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Tj:

Has nothing to do with YOU. Has everything to do with your information.

excon

---

I note that your posts have nothing to do with what I posted, but everything to do with me. I also note that you did not answer my question, which was:

I don't even know what it is about my position on this matter that you disagree with. I am supporting the right of the Atheist group to post this advertisement - so are you for or against freedom of speech - or just obsessed with me and have to attack me no matter what position I take?

Please clarify exactly where you disagree with me.