Blasphemy as a forum rule violation

[Kash]

I concur

[John Drake]

Originally Posted by Si modo

Irrelevant (not your previous posts though - hint) and off topic again. See how that works?

Here is the topic: Blasphemy as a forum rule violation. I'll comment on it again: It is beyond arrogant to impose one's religious beliefs on the rights to free speech granted by the Constitution.

There are no rights to free anything in these forums as they are private property.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by John Drake

There are no rights to free anything in these forums as they are private property.

Private property where the owner has set up rules of free speech. Are you advocating that the owner add blasphemy to prohibited speech on his site?

[Kash]

Originally Posted by Si modo

Private property where the owner has set up rules of free speech. Are you advocating that the owner add blasphemy to prohibited speech on his site?

That's essentially the question at hand.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by Kash

That's essentially the question at hand.

Yes, it is, as is evident from the title. I am against it and see the demand as a manifestation of intolerance by the one asking that it be done.

[noahath]

Folks please stay on topic.Further blatant off topic posts will result in infractions being issued.

[John Drake]

Originally Posted by Si modo

Irrelevant (not your previous posts though - hint) and off topic again. See how that works?

Here is the topic: Blasphemy as a forum rule violation. I'll comment on it again: It is beyond arrogant to impose one's religious beliefs on the rights to free speech granted by the Constitution.

There are no rights to free anything in these forums as they are private property.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by metalted

You have an idea that some crazy televangelist speaks for christians.

I would really, really love for you to show me where in this thread I've said anything about televangelists.

Nah, that's okay. Just go ahead and keep making up bullshit instead of actually engaging in a discussion...

[Kash]

Originally Posted by John Drake

There are no rights to free anything in these forums as they are private property.

That is true, but one of the tenets of this forum is that we seemingly have permission to engage in free speech, that there are no rules abridging our ability to do so. The question is whether the rules should be amended to disallow blasphemy, thereby abridging the free speech we currently enjoy.

After 20 pages of discussion, the answer seems to be a resounding no.

[AwareAndiCare]

Originally Posted by John Drake

There are no rights to free anything in these forums as they are private property.

The point is there are enough threads available to discuss most anything. I don't see the problem in creating a thread if necessary why challenge a simple process?

[John Drake]

Originally Posted by Si modo

Private property where the owner has set up rules of free speech. Are you advocating that the owner add blasphemy to prohibited speech on his site?

No, just pointing that out. The double post was a mistake btw.

I very much agree that free speech should be the rule and I definitely don't think blasphemy should be forbidden, but that's anybody's blasphemy. If certain Xtians are going to say Islam is an evil faith founded by a violent pedophile then they should be equally prepared to hear that Jesus was almost certainly what they regard as the worst kind of pervert and their entire religion is largely founded on the misogyny of a stereotype homosexual "club" from 2000 years ago.

[Kash]

Originally Posted by John Drake

Jesus was almost certainly what they regard as the worst kind of pervert and their entire religion is largely founded on the misogyny of a stereotype homosexual "club" from 2000 years ago.

It's not?

[Sunshine]

Originally Posted by Kash

By OUR standards, most certainly. However, in ancient times, puberty was sufficient age for consummation, so Muhammad wasn't especially a child molester as his youngest wife was of proper age, albeit very young according to us, for consummation.

Proper age my ass. She was 9. And 9 is not puberty!

[Kash]

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Proper age my ass. She was 9. And 9 is not puberty!

They were betrothed when she was 9, she didn't move in with him and consummate till several years later. This is the rough equivalent of tribes strengthening ties through marriage. Many of Muhammad's marriages were politically motivated.

[John Drake]

Originally Posted by Kash

They were betrothed when she was 9, she didn't move in with him and consummate till several years later. This is the rough equivalent of tribes strengthening ties through marriage. Many of Muhammad's marriages were politically motivated.

Agnes, Princess of France, was eight when she arrived in Constantinople to marry Alexius II.

Byzantine Princess Theodora was 13 when she married Baldwin III of Jerusalem

Child brides were the norm in Byzantium for much of the High Middle Ages.