Book Burning

[Sherona]

That in itself doesn't hurt anything, no. If anything they'll make HP even more intriguing, most likely among their own kids, because people will eventually go for something that someone else tells them they can't. And as far as the porn goes...never going to go away. Ever.

Actually all these threads are doing is also keeping up the attention they sought by burning thebooks. They did not burn them because they thought they had any real chance of takign them from the mainstream, they burned them to draw attention to their cause and to symbolically show they were against something. I don't agree with them, but I much prefer they do that then say, try to assassinate whoever wrote those books. (Sorry I /really/ am not into HP books so have no clue the author)

That being said, yes Porn will never go away. Its been around since caveman days I am sure. *smiles* I would not be surprised to find out there are cave drawings of phallic pictures and other interesting bits.

[The Overlord]

Actually all these threads are doing is also keeping up the attention they sought by burning thebooks. They did not burn them because they thought they had any real chance of takign them from the mainstream, they burned them to draw attention to their cause and to symbolically show they were against something.

Of course none of these book-burners are very likely at all to be reading this thread, and even then they get the attention they sought only if someone here sympathizes with them. This is close to the philosophy of 'ignore them, or the terrorists win'. On the contrary, any private little victory they feel might glean from publicity is overshadowed by their glaring ignorance made plain.

[Sherona]

Of course none of these book-burners are very likely at all to be reading this thread, and even then they get the attention they sought only if someone here sympathizes with them. This is close to the philosophy of 'ignore them, or the terrorists win'. On the contrary, any private little victory they feel might glean from publicity is overshadowed by their glaring ignorance made plain.

Unfortunately the opposition, and I am not talking about this thread in particular but in general, has shown their own brand of ignorance. And I have heard a book burner state that the outcry over the few dozen books that were burned claimed that they have shown their own brand of hypocrisy and ignorance. Mostly by the anti-religion tripe and rhetoric in the form of common insults. People want religious people to be more tolerant, but when one is shown intolerance then they tend to reply with intolerance...its a vicious cycle. Both the religious, and the anti-religion people need to stop the cycle of intolerance. (since I am agnostic and do not belong to either groups I do have a slightly skewed view of the situation) Just like violence begets Violence, so does intolerance beget intolerance.

And btw, this thread is public, and thus is googable, and able to be viewed even by Guests. So one never knows who can be reading it. :)

[Maeven]

Individuals burning books is one thing.  I am pround to live and want to continue to live in a country that allows and protects this symbolic speech.  I also don't  believe that the act (book burning) necessarily signifies ignorance if the book burner can logically explain the thought process that motivates the act.  In contrast, if the book burner is only burning the book because he was told the book was bad... then, yes, that would be ignorant by definition. 

This is not to say that I would ever participate in such an act even if I abhored the particular book, cd, movie, etc. 

Governments burning books and/or attempting to eradicate entire thought processes poses a completely different set of problems... it's those acts that scare me.

[Sherona]

Governments burning books and/or attempting to eradicate entire thought processes poses a completely different set of problems... it's those acts that scare me. 

Indeed. this is something that is worth fighting about.

[Jineriq]

Well for the record I'm not happy that they're able to torch all this stuff; by our own constitution they're able to express themselves in this manner, even if that's the freedom to express their stupidity.

I am mindful however, that people like this have no real interest in freedom of speech, as long as it's something that doesn't conform to their views, and they prove this by their actions; put them in government and see how badly the First Amendment gets hijacked.

In that regard, what would make me most happy is to show them what it means to be truly silenced.

Here's where we run into the problem, and I think it's the same kind of thing that Sherona was talking about. Their ability to burn these books, which of course is an expression of free speech, is more or less equivalent to your ability to call them all stupid without a second thought. To you and me, it might seem stupid to do so, though we don't subscribe to their beliefs. It is very possible that they're not stupid at all, it is possible to be intelligent and act stupid.

So, in response to individuals wanting to deny others free speech, you want to deny the original individuals free speech? That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, but it's certainly not in the best interest of free speech.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Unfortunately the opposition, and I am not talking about this thread in particular but in general, has shown their own brand of ignorance. And I have heard a book burner state that the outcry over the few dozen books that were burned claimed that they have shown their own brand of hypocrisy and ignorance. Mostly by the anti-religion tripe and rhetoric in the form of common insults. People want religious people to be more tolerant, but when one is shown intolerance then they tend to reply with intolerance...its a vicious cycle. Both the religious, and the anti-religion people need to stop the cycle of intolerance. (since I am agnostic and do not belong to either groups I do have a slightly skewed view of the situation) Just like violence begets Violence, so does intolerance beget intolerance.

And btw, this thread is public, and thus is googable, and able to be viewed even by Guests. So one never knows who can be reading it. :)

Myself being against the all around tolerance, everybody is right movement, I don't want to be tolerant.  If it goes against my personal beliefs and I'm actually knowledgeable about it, then I have every right to be intolerant.  I don't much care for relativists.  And I think that that is where most people who are advocates of tolerance are going, strait to relativism.  In a relativists point of view (which is not yours I might add so this is definitely not aimed at you) the person burning the book is right AND the person outraged about the burning of the book is also right.  But they can't both be right.  Burning the book cannot be both right and wrong.  The relativist says that it's tolerance. . .I say it's ignorance.  To tolerate something is to not agree with it but to let it be or not insult it like a child.  But, If I don't agree with it, I feel I must speak out against it.  First I have to make myself knowledgeable on the fact, then if I'm still against it, I should speak out against it.  That's just how my philosophy works.  I'm not to big on childish insults myself because I don't like ignorance.  This book burning shows ignorance and I don't like it.  Am I going to return and show ignorance back?  That makes me just like them.  So no!  But I do speak out against it.  They are burning someones pressous words.  They are burning pressous knowledge and things that build wonderful imaginations in our children.  That erks me.  But. . .I went off on a tangent there. . .

[Sherona]

Myself being against the all around tolerance, everybody is right movement, I don't want to be tolerant.  If it goes against my personal beliefs and I'm actually knowledgeable about it, then I have every right to be intolerant.  I don't much care for relativists.  And I think that that is where most people who are advocates of tolerance are going, strait to relativism.  In a relativists point of view (which is not yours I might add so this is definitely not aimed at you) the person burning the book is right AND the person outraged about the burning of the book is also right.  But they can't both be right.  Burning the book cannot be both right and wrong.  The relativist says that it's tolerance. . .I say it's ignorance.  To tolerate something is to not agree with it but to let it be or not insult it like a child.  But, If I don't agree with it, I feel I must speak out against it.  First I have to make myself knowledgeable on the fact, then if I'm still against it, I should speak out against it.  That's just how my philosophy works.  I'm not to big on childish insults myself because I don't like ignorance.  This book burning shows ignorance and I don't like it.  Am I going to return and show ignorance back?  That makes me just like them.  So no!  But I do speak out against it.  They are burning someones pressous words.  They are burning pressous knowledge and things that build wonderful imaginations in our children.  That erks me.  But. . .I went off on a tangent there. . .

*smiles* But my point is if YOUR going to be intolerant of someone, then I don't think you have the right to complain about that same person's intolerance. :) I personally don't think either side is right or wrong. I am completely opposed to telling someone their feelings and emotions are wrong. I am opposed of telling someone their faith in any god of their choice is wrong, I am opposed to telling someone that my way is the only way of doing things. *shrugs* :)


If one does not agree with something then /yes/ they are right to speak out about it. What I am saying is one should do it in a way that does not make them and the people they agree with look like intolerant baffoons. Calling someone Retarded, Moronic, Idiotic, for stating their opinions not only make the person saying that look kind of silly, but also makes people /not/ take their stance seriously. And no, I am not trying to say you didany of the above Poet, that was just my point I was trying to make.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*smiles* But my point is if YOUR going to be intolerant of someone, then I don't think you have the right to complain about that same person's intolerance. :) I personally don't think either side is right or wrong. I am completely opposed to telling someone their feelings and emotions are wrong. I am opposed of telling someone their faith in any god of their choice is wrong, I am opposed to telling someone that my way is the only way of doing things. *shrugs* :)


If one does not agree with something then /yes/ they are right to speak out about it. What I am saying is one should do it in a way that does not make them and the people they agree with look like intolerant baffoons. Calling someone Retarded, Moronic, Idiotic, for stating their opinions not only make the person saying that look kind of silly, but also makes people /not/ take their stance seriously. And no, I am not trying to say you didany of the above Poet, that was just my point I was trying to make.

Intolerance, everybody does it.  Some 40 year old man rapes a 5 year old girl.  It's wrong, most people agree, he was wrong.  That's intolerance.  When someone murders someone else without good reason (such as self-defence) they are wrong.  Most people agree, murder is wrong.  That's intolerance.  I'm not intolerant of their religion.  I've known one or two true Christians and I don't have a problem with them.  It's those who are ignorant.  Those who rely souly on mere-belief because the bible tells us to find the truth.  The bible shows us that just accepting what we're told is not what God wants.  God would not want, according to the bible, these people to burn these books, especially if they really know nothing about the books.  It's ignorance that I'm intolerant of. 

Now there is a difference between intolerance and just plain childish behavior.  No offence to anyone but when you're trying to prove a point and stand up against something, calling people tards and such is just childish and makes you look bad!  Intolerance is not in itself a bad thing if it's done correctly.  Yes, there is a correct way to be intolerant.  But intolerance isn't bad.  What we do see alot of these days though is childish behavior putting both people in the wrong.  People start labeling things intolerant without taking the meaning of intolerance into perspective and then we get a bad view of intolerance.

[Sherona]

I am not talking semantics here. Yes by the bare definition of the word then intolerance is good and healthy. However, I am going by the majority use of the word as describing something that is closed-minded and in some cases bigotted.

Another example of a word mainstream society skewed to where it meant something /similiar/ but not really the same, AND gave it a negative connotation. "Queer". I used to simply be a word used to describe something that was not the norm, something unusual and weird. Then when homosexuality began to be tentatively discussed outloud they used the word Queer because at the time it was seen as something not the norm. Over time it evolved to be meant mainly as a slur, though I do expect there are some who use it to the dictionary meaning. "Man I saw this queer bug today, it was huge and had pincers AND a scorpion-like tail. Man was it weird." *shrugs* In today's society Intolerance is mostly used to speak of people who are not open-minded and put blinders on to where all they see is their own way of doing things and no one else's.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Yes, I understand this but true intolerance is just the opposite.  And society is going to use the word to describe me because that's what they want to do is insult me.  What they really do is compliment me and I can have a good laugh at them because they don't even know it because they haven't taken the time to actually find out what they are calling me.

[Sherona]

Yes, I understand this but true intolerance is just the opposite.  And society is going to use the word to describe me because that's what they want to do is insult me.  What they really do is compliment me and I can have a good laugh at them because they don't even know it because they haven't taken the time to actually find out what they are calling me.

*sigh* Let me try again. Because society use Intolerant as a word to describe closed-minded individuals who refuse to see a different way of doing things, or judge another for their beliefs/race/sexual orientation/etc then Most are only calling you intolerant ifyou show these traits. If you do show these traits then *shrugs* If you think its a compliment to be thought of as closed-minded etc and so forth then that is perfectly within your right to believe so and I will definitely support your right to be so.

another word I found interesting, is the word Ignorant. I use it to its dictionary meaning, meaning unknowledgable. I am ignorant of many maths, I am ignorant of Computer things, I am ignorant in a lot of things, however I realized a bit late in life that Ignorant has evolved into a description of a /bad/ connotation. *smiles* I always find it interesting how society can take a word of insignificance and put a whole new load of significance onto it.

Edit: I should add that no Poet I do not think you have shown too much of the societal views of Intolerance, though your biase against christianity has shown through a lot. I did not want my post to be seen as saying you have shown the above traits.

[ShrowdedPoet]

*sigh* Let me try again. Because society use Intolerant as a word to describe closed-minded individuals who refuse to see a different way of doing things, or judge another for their beliefs/race/sexual orientation/etc then Most are only calling you intolerant ifyou show these traits. If you do show these traits then *shrugs* If you think its a compliment to be thought of as closed-minded etc and so forth then that is perfectly within your right to believe so and I will definitely support your right to be so.

another word I found interesting, is the word Ignorant. I use it to its dictionary meaning, meaning unknowledgable. I am ignorant of many maths, I am ignorant of Computer things, I am ignorant in a lot of things, however I realized a bit late in life that Ignorant has evolved into a description of a /bad/ connotation. *smiles* I always find it interesting how society can take a word of insignificance and put a whole new load of significance onto it.

There are those people who call you intolerant just because you don't believe or think the way they do and say so.  That's what I was talking about.  They're not even technically letting the word live up to it's full todays usage.  They just use it to describe people they think are closed minded because the so called intolerant doesn't believe what they believe.  These are the type of people I was talking about.

[Sherona]

Oh I would like to swing this topic back /on/ topic *smiles*

I find that burning a book to be a very symbolic action. I could see myself burning a flier that announced that the Aryan Nation was the supreme nation in symbolism of burning off hate. I can see myself burning a pamplet that stated that Homosexual marriage was leading this country to hell in the same action of symbolism. I don't see them burning Harry Potter books any different, even if I do disagree and do not think that Harry Potter Books are satanic or evil. Just..a bit boring to contemplate reading ;) Definitely not burn-worthy heehee.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Oh I would like to swing this topic back /on/ topic *smiles*

I find that burning a book to be a very symbolic action. I could see myself burning a flier that announced that the Aryan Nation was the supreme nation in symbolism of burning off hate. I can see myself burning a pamphlet that stated that Homosexual marriage was leading this country to hell in the same action of symbolism. I don't see them burning Harry Potter books any different, even if I do disagree and do not think that Harry Potter Books are satanic or evil. Just..a bit boring to contemplate reading ;) Definitely not burn-worthy heehee.

Well, what I find more wrong than them burning these books is the fact that they most likely don't really know what's in them because they most likely have not read them.  If you're going to burn it to take a symbolic stand, at least know what it says. 

I myself stand against any type of burning literature and such.  Pamphlets, I don't perceive as literature. . .so I probably wouldn't care but books, essays, poems, and stories. . .*shakes head*  that bothers me.  There are other ways to take a stand against something.  *shrugs* 

[Sherona]

Well, what I find more wrong than them burning these books is the fact that they most likely don't really know what's in them because they most likely have not read them.  If you're going to burn it to take a symbolic stand, at least know what it says. 

I myself stand against any type of burning literature and such.  Pamphlets, I don't perceive as literature. . .so I probably wouldn't care but books, essays, poems, and stories. . .*shakes head*  that bothers me.  There are other ways to take a stand against something.  *shrugs* 

Lets explore why you think burning a book is any different then burning a pamphlet. They are both basically peices of paper with words that someone worked hard at putting down. They both depict ideas and thoughts that the author presumably believes in. If the pamphlet I found on my vehicle's windshield telling methat I needed to support gay-marriage ban was set between bindings and a spine, would it have been more thenjust being the lamenated material it was?

Also, not defending Christianity's beliefs at all here, but just reading the cover is more then enough to tell the highly devote and fundalmental christian that the book contained sorcery and basically witch craft. Which in their belief is of satan, so they really didn't have to read the book to come to the conclusion that it promoted sorcery, satanism, and witchcraft. That being said, they probably would not have felt so strongly against it except that it was /super/ popular amongst the young children.. *shrugs* Again not defending, rather then explaining.

[ShrowdedPoet]

Lets explore why you think burning a book is any different then burning a pamphlet. They are both basically peices of paper with words that someone worked hard at putting down. They both depict ideas and thoughts that the author presumably believes in. If the pamphlet I found on my vehicle's windshield telling methat I needed to support gay-marriage ban was set between bindings and a spine, would it have been more thenjust being the lamenated material it was?

Also, not defending Christianity's beliefs at all here, but just reading the cover is more then enough to tell the highly devote and fundalmental christian that the book contained sorcery and basically witch craft. Which in their belief is of satan, so they really didn't have to read the book to come to the conclusion that it promoted sorcery, satanism, and witchcraft. That being said, they probably would not have felt so strongly against it except that it was /super/ popular amongst the young children.. *shrugs* Again not defending, rather then explaining.

I'm not terribly sure about pamphlets, I've never actually thought about them.  Possibly because I don't get them often.  I suppose it is not different and therefor burning it would be just as wrong as any other literature.  *nods* Exploration is good.  This is what we do in Philosophy class.

Now, on the case of Christianity and witch craft.  If they took the time to see where the translation in their Bible's went wrong, they'd get a clearer picture of what they're doing wrong.  God did not condemn magic (which is what is in Harry Potter).  In the verse Christians so commonly link to witchcraft "suffer not a witch to live", the original Hebrew says, "suffer not a poisoner to live."  But if they would read Harry Potter instead of just deciding they don't like it on the fact that is contains magic (which is what Jesus did often enough, magic I mean) they would find it's closer to the Christianity than it is to paganism. 

And mostly what they are doing is only herding their children strait to what they don't want them to go to.  I've noticed this.  Christians think that it's the music, books, and games that's taking their children in a different direction.  BUT it's really the christian attitude towards this stuff.  The way they act and react to it.  I've seen alot of young people leave Christianity because of the way Christians are acting to thinks like Harry Potter.  So burning these books is having an effect that they don't even particularly want.  If they would step back and look at it all, they would hopfully find a better way of standing up for what they believe.

[Sherona]

Ok so, why is it wrong to burn literature? I mean not in the sense of stealing, confiscating, and banning literature, but simply burning something as symbolism? Its simply words on a page isn't it? :)

[ShrowdedPoet]

Ok so, why is it wrong to burn literature? I mean not in the sense of stealing, confiscating, and banning literature, but simply burning something as symbolism? Its simply words on a page isn't it? :)

Well to me literature is much more than simply words on a page.  Those words have meaning and what the author wrote has meaning.  These words have knowledge, power, texture, smell, taste, sound.  These words can change lives or they can inspire.  Just because you don't agree with the words doesn't mean you should go out and burn them.  Maybe you should speak or write your opinion, your problem, give your words because though actions speak louder than words, words stay through the years.  People forget, they die, but words remember and will always remain.  Words are alive and the person who spoke or wrote them breathed life into them.  It's like burning that person at the stake.  . . .

[Sherona]

Well to me literature is much more than simply words on a page.  Those words have meaning and what the author wrote has meaning.  These words have knowledge, power, texture, smell, taste, sound.  These words can change lives or they can inspire.  Just because you don't agree with the words doesn't mean you should go out and burn them.  Maybe you should speak or write your opinion, your problem, give your words because though actions speak louder than words, words stay through the years.  People forget, they die, but words remember and will always remain.  Words are alive and the person who spoke or wrote them breathed life into them.  It's like burning that person at the stake.  . . .

I would agreewtih this if we were talking about the government seizing, confiscating and other wise stealing ALL copies of writing so that the words are forever destroyed..but we are talking about a handful of copies amongst millions...hardly destroying the person's ideas or words or the power that person has.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I would agreewtih this if we were talking about the government seizing, confiscating and other wise stealing ALL copies of writing so that the words are forever destroyed..but we are talking about a handful of copies amongst millions...hardly destroying the person's ideas or words or the power that person has.

It starts with a few and then it escalates.  It's a very good possibility that behavior such as this could escalate, especially if people think it's no big deal cause it was just a hand full of books.  Power can be a raw angry thing and if someone takes power and misuse it then things can get bad.  Things are happening now in America that's bringing the nation down and in the unsteadiness of this country then so much can happen.  You never know when it could turn into something bigger and meaner.  I stand opposed to it no matter what, that's just the way I tick.  But when do we know when things get out of hand or what is really too much?

[Celestial Goblin]

If those people are the same people who want Harry Potter taken out of school libraries and porn made illegal, then I believe they deserve criticism and scorn for their beliefs.
You don't need to ban something to oppose it, after all.

Now, if those folks wouldn't censor stuff even if they could and all they want to do is to burn books to feel themselves better, I don't have a problem with it. If their hatred for Harry Potter or porn is the same kind of hatred geeks have for Uwe Boll movies, then it's no problem. If it's the kind of hatred that stems from a desire to ban stuff, then the rest of society should tell those people that it's bad.

[Sherona]

If those people are the same people who want Harry Potter taken out of school libraries and porn made illegal, then I believe they deserve criticism and scorn for their beliefs.
You don't need to ban something to oppose it, after all.

Now, if those folks wouldn't censor stuff even if they could and all they want to do is to burn books to feel themselves better, I don't have a problem with it. If their hatred for Harry Potter or porn is the same kind of hatred geeks have for Uwe Boll movies, then it's no problem. If it's the kind of hatred that stems from a desire to ban stuff, then the rest of society should tell those people that it's bad.

*smiles* as I told Shrowded in PM's, there is a way to tell people something is bad, and a way not to. Belittleing them and insulting them with name-calling = not a good way to put a point across. But then again that is just my opinion. ;)

[The Overlord]

So, in response to individuals wanting to deny others free speech, you want to deny the original individuals free speech? That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, but it's certainly not in the best interest of free speech.

I am mindful that we may be eventually moving to a point as a country where universal freedom of speech and expression are going to be under sufficient attack that we're going to come to blows over it. A situation that if and when it occurs I guarantee you I'll be involved on some level.

There was a situation not far from where I live that a woman, one of these busybody Christian soccer moms with far too much time on her hands tried a (fortunately) unsuccessful bid to get HP books taken out of local libraries because of their connections to paganism and 'witchcraft'.

These groups or individuals don't give a shit about universal freedom of speech. It's not good enough for them to 'protect' their children from these delusional evils; oh no, they want to make sure everyone else is denied it too.

This sort of thing is nothing new to our cultural fabric.

Wiki- The prohibition or dry movement began in the 1840s, spearheaded by pietistic religious denominations, especially the Methodists. The late 1800s saw the temperance movement broaden its focus from abstinence to all behavior and institutions related to alcohol consumption. Preachers such as Reverend Mark A. Matthews linked liquor-dispensing saloons with prostitution.

Some successes were registered in the 1850s, including Maine's total ban on the manufacture and sale of liquor, adopted in 1851. However, the movement soon lost strength, and prohibition was not a major political issue during the American Civil War (1861-1865). It revived in the 1880s, with the Woman's Christian Temperance Union and the Prohibition Party.

After the war, the Women's Christian Temperance Union was founded in 1873. The organization did not promote moderation or temperance but rather prohibition. One of its methods to achieve that goal was education. It was believed that if it could "get to the children" it could create a dry sentiment leading to prohibition. As it turned out, nationwide Prohibition was enacted (by the 18th Amendment) before nationwide women's suffrage was (by the 19th Amendment).
"Who does not love wine wife and song, will be a fool for his lifelong!" — a vigorous 1873 assertion of cultural values of German-American immigrants.
"Who does not love wine wife and song, will be a fool for his lifelong!" — a vigorous 1873 assertion of cultural values of German-American immigrants.

In 1881, Kansas became the first state to outlaw alcoholic beverages in its Constitution, with Carrie Nation gaining notoriety for enforcing the provision herself by walking into saloons, scolding customers, and using her hatchet to destroy bottles of liquor. Nation recruited ladies as The Carry Nation Prohibition Group which Nation also led. Other activists enforced the cause by entering saloons, singing, praying, and urging saloon keepers to stop selling alcohol. Many other states, especially in the South, also enacted prohibition, along with many individual counties. Hostility to saloons and their political influence was characteristic of the Progressive Era. Supported by the anti-German mood of World War I, the Anti-Saloon League, through intense lobbying, pushed the Constitutional amendment through Congress and the states, and it went into effect in 1920.

Prohibition was an important force in state and local politics from the 1840s through the 1930s. The political forces involved were ethnoreligious in character, as demonstrated by numerous historical studies. Prohibition was demanded by the "dries" -- primarily pietistic Protestant denominations, especially the Methodists, Northern Baptists, Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, Disciples, Congregationalists, Quakers, and Scandinavian Lutherans. They identified saloons as politically corrupt and drinking as a personal sin. They were opposed by the "wets" -- primarily liturgical Protestants (Episcopalians, German Lutherans) and Roman Catholics, who denounced the idea that the government should define morality. Even in the wet stronghold of New York City there was an active prohibition movement, led by Norwegian church groups and African-American labor activists who believed that Prohibition would benefit workers, especially African-Americans. Tea merchants and soda fountain manufacturers generally supported Prohibition, thinking a ban on alcohol would increase sales of their products.

So, in response to individuals wanting to deny others free speech, you want to deny the original individuals free speech? That's certainly an interesting viewpoint, but it's certainly not in the best interest of free speech.

Let's reiterate this one again, shall we? You have cases where conservatives want to use their freedom of speech to find ways to deny you yours. Tell me, is that in the interest of free speech? You can't have your cake and everyone else's slice as well, no matter what your fucking holy book tells you.

Given the 'moral' depths that this country has plummeted to, and you're a fool if you believe something similar to prohibition can't occur again, we're perfectly justified in any defense we need, even depriving the perpetrators of life and limb. No, it won't be alcohol again this time; besides any private citizens, the alcohol industry within our borders carries way too much weight to be shut down wholesale.

So, they'll try and identify another evil, easier to pick on, these bible-thumping busybodies. It's only a matter of time where enough of them will gain momentum on something, and then we'll have to deal with them.

[Jineriq]

Let's reiterate this one again, shall we? You have cases where conservatives want to use their freedom of speech to find ways to deny you yours. Tell me, is that in the interest of free speech? You can't have your cake and everyone else's slice as well, no matter what your fucking holy book tells you.

Given the 'moral' depths that this country has plummeted to, and you're a fool if you believe something similar to prohibition can't occur again, we're perfectly justified in any defense we need, even depriving the perpetrators of life and limb. No, it won't be alcohol again this time; besides any private citizens, the alcohol industry within our borders carries way too much weight to be shut down wholesale.

So, they'll try and identify another evil, easier to pick on, these bible-thumping busybodies. It's only a matter of time where enough of them will gain momentum on something, and then we'll have to deal with them.

Just as they, not I, can't have their cake and everyone's slice, neither can we take their slice. I'm not advocating that their stance is right, but I am arguing that you can't possibly take away their freedom of speech no matter how horribly their using it. Either all speech is free or none is free. It's really that simple.

The 'conservatives' will never be able to deny anybody of their freedom of speech. I personally don't believe all conservatives want to deny my freedoms, just I believe not all liberals want to raise my taxes and enact a type of Nanny Government. Don't get me wrong, they'll try and almost make themselves look stupid for doing it, but it won't happen. There are more than a few men and women in service that have sworn to uphold the constitution, "from enemies foreign and domestic."

We're already having to deal with them on gay marriage, so I think your fight may already be here. I see the evidence of this fight all the time in California, and while they can say it's wrong all they want, they shouldn't be infringing on such basic rights, rights to which we're all entitled. I defend their rights to be bigots, racists, and generally close minded assholes, regardless of whether or not I agree with it.