Atheists and theists must unite...

to put and end to the fundamentalists................... the following short video hits the nail on the head.







I agrre...look there are always going to be theists and there will always be atheists..there always have been...there have always been fundamentalists.

Look we do not have to agree with one another...how boring this world would be..but we do need to work together to stop this.

but watching the guy during the first part was sort of like watching a 1970's kung fu movie.

Anyone who would force their views on others by power of violence or government (same thing), or advocate government sanctioned censorship of any kind, is a force for evil.

^^^^^ there comes a point were good people have to put a stop to evil. Live and let live is great, but only if all will practice it.

LOL!! Sounds kinda like a fundamentalist call there bgyuk very interesting.

What is this double standard you speak of please explain.

ViewType:

"or advocate government sanctioned censorship of any kind, is a force for evil."

So censoring NAMBLA is a bad thing?

Absolutely. I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

As soon as you start censoring an idea solely because you disagree with it, you open the door to people censoring your ideas for the same reason.

So censoring men that want to have SEX with 18 month old babies is wrong..!?! Men that even Lobby? WOW ViewType... Just WOW!

So you think it should be illegal to talk about it?

Violent speech is generally protected by the Constitution. However, the line between controversial and criminal speech has proved evasive for courts. Speech is not protected if it advocates "imminent" violent or unlawful conduct. Speech can be calculated to incite people, but not if it incites people in the wrong environment. Thus, screaming "fire" in a crowded theater is actionable, but not necessarily doing so in a park.

Such contradictions reflect a long history of how we deal with violent or inciteful speech. Under the Sedition Act of 1798, Congress made it a crime to "excite" people against the government or otherwise bring the government into "contempt or disrepute." This law was used by President John Adams against critics, despite its flagrant violation of the First Amendment and condemnations by framers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison

So yep! I think that men who lobby for such ideals are worthy of the censoring chair! Men that lobby for the legality of it, are practicing it.

But with that said dont get me wrong. I think that there is a fine line between those things. I was just curious about the "ALL" in your comment. I dont think it is as cut and dry as "ALL". Speech has to be protected and the people should be able to raise it's collective, and singluar voices to the government. But I am sure if some guy stood outside your house on the street, and kept telling you he thought he should be able to come in and touch your kids. I bet you wouldnt put up with it for very long before you censored him with the police or force.

I agree with view type. I may disagree with atheists...but I to will defend their right to say what they want.

If somebody takes their freedom of speech away...who's to say mine is not next?

His history is wrong. By the time the West was exposed to Greek science it had advanced well past anything the Greeks had. Greek philosophy always had an influence on Western Culture, it didn't wait until the 10th century, Aquinas was informed by it in the 5th century.

But with that said dont get me wrong. I think that there is a fine line between those things. I was just curious about the "ALL" in your comment. I dont think it is as cut and dry as "ALL". Speech has to be protected and the people should be able to raise it's collective, and singluar voices to the government. But I am sure if some guy stood outside your house on the street, and kept telling you he thought he should be able to come in and touch your kids. I bet you wouldnt put up with it for very long before you censored him with the police or force.



Agreed, and nor should the thinking man put up with the scientifically illiterate wanting to teach whacky fairly tails instead of evolution in science classes.

"This law was used by President John Adams against critics, despite its flagrant violation of the First Amendment and condemnations by framers such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison."

Do you think that was acceptable? Just so the government could control critics?

"I think that men who lobby for such ideals are worthy of the censoring chair!"

Even though there is no imminent harm threatened by their speech? Censoring lobbying is out-and-out refusing to allow people to attempt to change the laws through peaceful means. Everyone should have the right to lobby for changes to the laws, even stupid changes.

"Men that lobby for the legality of it, are practicing it. "

An overly broad statement, don't you think? For example, I would lobby to legalize prostitution because I don't think it's the government's business, but I don't personally use those services.

"But I am sure if some guy stood outside your house on the street, and kept telling you he thought he should be able to come in and touch your kids. I bet you wouldnt put up with it for very long before you censored him with the police or force."

The concept of "time and place" regulation comes in here (long a part of First Amendment analysis). Plus, such talk now becomes an imminent harm. That's very different from a very small group (NAMBLA) hosting a website and lobbying the government.

Who wouldn't want NAMBLA lobbying as much as possible?  Not only do I want them out stumping for their cause, I want them on TV with their names captioned underneath and the local TV newsfeed that's broadcasting it.  That way I'll know the guy when he is lurking around the playplace at McD's and I can dig out his eye with a Shamrock Shake spoon. 

That's one of the best things about protecting speech, and protecting awful speech, it lets you know who the loonies are.

I think ViewType is so right on this one.

How could Aquinas by informed by Greek thought in the 5th century when Aquinas wasn't born until the 13th century?

The guy in the video is wrong about a lot of things, however he's right about the Reconquista being very instrumental in affecting Christian thought. Even there I think he's putting the cart before the horse, but whatever...

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't necessarily see this widespread imminent fundamentalist assault on all of our schools, beliefs, and values...and I live in southwest Virginia, in the heart of Appalachia. In fact, at times I see the opposite - fundamentalist communities withdrawing from general society and forming their own schools. Yeah, it sucks for their kids, but it's not like they're forcing it on everyone. Now...in other communities this may be different, and I'd really like to find out where this is happening.

I mean, I have snake handlers less than two hours from me, and I haven't seen any serious assault by fundamentalists on the government or schools or anything.

  How could Aquinas by informed by Greek thought in the 5th century when Aquinas wasn't born until the 13th century?

Its called reading, however i appreciate that there have been many texts "forbidden" by religion.