Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 257 of 257

Thread: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

  1. #251
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,797

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    1.)got your opinion. noted.
    2.)no need for any more bumper sticker responses.
    3.) just ignore my further posts and assume your "debating" is just to much for me.
    4.) thanks in advance
    translation: you have nothing that support your failed argument

    1.) that was fact not opinion
    2..) deflect and call them what ever you want they are facts the prove you wrong if you disagree simply provide any facts that prove otherwise, heck provide ONE fact that does lol
    3.) no thanks every time your factually wrong im going to point it out but i accept your admission of defeat
    4.) you are welcome, im here to help
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #252
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    JoCo Kansas
    Last Seen
    03-01-17 @ 02:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    373

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    the term "god damn" isn't allowed on any radio or broadcast tv station I ever heard of. why do you think that is? or are you just going to deny it's true and make me go find proof.
    Bleeping Out Words : NPR Ombudsman : NPR

    "Whatever it bleeped out could not possibly be as bad as what it left unbleeped," wrote Carr. "The uncensored language is a violation of the 10 Commandments and HIGHLY offensive to many Christians. I am astonished at the insensitivity of NPR. If I want to listen to Howard Stern, I know how to turn the dial."

    It was easy for NPR editors to bleep out the other two well-known swear words that never make it on the air. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines make it crystal clear. The guidelines define profanity as "language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."

    Using "god damn it," for example, is not "legally profane" according to the FCC.

  3. #253
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,812

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    even the one that was responsible for the creation of the nation itself?! No citizen living in those times(when the country was created) would say that's right, or else the commandments would have never been in the courthouse in the first place.

    You want other religions to be allowed to put their own stuff up, fine. Show me where they have historical significance to THIS country and I'll be happy to allow it.

    So now the criteria is "historical significance"? Christianity is not "responsible for the creation of the nation" The creation came about thru a mixture of many factors, religion only comes into play because the earliest settlements were created by religious minorities escaping persecution. HOWEVER, those who were once persecuted became the persecutors in the New World. In the 17th Century, Christianity as an overarching group simply didn't exist, the people of that time focused on the church they belonged to, all of the others which we would class as Christian were seen as heretics and not to be allowed the same privileges as the True Christians - whoever they might be.

    It was during the 18th C that matters began to change, even though several of the colonies, even after they became states, required tax payments to support the state church. Following the revolution, this practice continued, which is the primary reason Jefferson wrote the infamous " wall of separation " letter to the Danbury CT, Baptists who were required to pay for the state church's operations and yet received nothing in exchange.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  4. #254
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    the term "god damn" isn't allowed on any radio or broadcast tv station I ever heard of. why do you think that is? or are you just going to deny it's true and make me go find proof.
    It might not be a practice of the stations but the laws re. indecency do not ban religiously taboo words.

    "It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent or profane material.
    Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

    Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

    An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
    The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
    The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

    Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

    The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

    The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

    Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.
    Profane Broadcast Restrictions

    The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.” Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m."
    Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts | FCC.gov

    Despite the use of the word "profanity" the ban is intended to prohibit use of sexual or excretory words even when they are not used in an indecent manner. Fining stations for use of the F-word outside of any intended sexual context is an example. There have been no fines applied for words considered profane for religious reasons in recent years.

  5. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeTrumps View Post
    even the one that was responsible for the creation of the nation itself?! No citizen living in those times(when the country was created) would say that's right, or else the commandments would have never been in the courthouse in the first place.

    You want other religions to be allowed to put their own stuff up, fine. Show me where they have historical significance to THIS country and I'll be happy to allow it.
    The first amendment and the courts have been quite clear, all religions are to be treated equally under the law. There is no historical significance exception in the first amendment or in case law. Although the courts have ruled inconsistently and often wrongly about the use of prayers during official governmental events and have cited tradition as an excuse, they have never cited "historical significance" as a justification for giving privileges to one religion or group of religions only.

  6. #256
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Very likely. I'm tempted to point out that rising generations now exit the public education system sauteed in left-wing assumptions, one of which is Diversity in Everything, Except Thought; but that doesn't exactly detract from the greater point. So long as no one seeks to use government power in either direction, the choices of free individuals should be left unhampered here. Furthermore, the system will be somewhat self-regulating; those who choose to degrade their own efficiency too much will be destroyed by the competition.

    And ultimately, I think, this will be good for the Church. It's been a pretty low-cost choice to adhere to a faith for a while here in America.
    Meh, what you say pretty much goes for both sides.

  7. #257
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Controversial bill to expand religious protections advances

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Meh, what you say pretty much goes for both sides.
    Well, yeah. If you choose (for example) to refuse to hire competent professionals because they are Atheists, then you will lose out to your better staffed competition, just as you would if you refused to hire competent professionals because they were Christians.

Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •