Now we just have to get George to renounce atheism and accept agnosticism.
===========================

Nice commentary, Jay.

The way I see it, religion is like atomic power. It's the most powerful force in people's lives, and when it is not used rationally, it can be extremely destructive.

I agree with you that the rebirth of Islamic fundamentalism has become a major problem in the world, but so far at least, the main effect has been infighting between Sunnis and Shia in nations which are already Islamic. Of course that sort of instability can spread if one side or the other takes over a major nation state and then exports it's extremism. Iran would be the best example of that.

But as an agnostic, you should realize that fundamentalist Christianity can be a problem as well. Here in the United States, religious extremists have actively sought to suppress scientific education and knowledge. They use their faith as a bludgeon against the individual rights of others, such as by efforts to ban books and to reduce forms of entertainment to a point that being inoffensive is more important than being artistic or realistic.

The perfect example of that was the Janet Jackson Super Bowl fiasco. For the sake of a fraction of a second's esposure of a breast, the fundamentalist Christian branch of the professionally-offended went completely nuts. My first reaction to Jackson was that it was funny. I was totally amazed that the outrage -- much of which I believe was feigned for political purposes -- gained so much traction. The reaction was so out of proportion to the trigger that I believe it was nearly psychotic. And that's is what I believe is the best way to judge whether or not our beliefs are serving us well.

If our faith gently leads us to become more loving and kind and responsible, then it serves us well, both individually and as a society.

But if our faith leads to violence, as is the case in many Islamic societies and occasionally in the US as with Paul Hill or David Koresh and their ilk, then clearly it's doing us harm.

I'm a born-again Christian who has matured in his faith to become a Catholic. But before that, I was raised in a militantly atheist home, so I've seen all sides of this issue and I hope it lends me some perspective.

I think that everyone could benefit from faith in a higher power of good. Those who have no moral anchor tend to just grab all they can and trample anybody who gets in the way with no guilt at all. But it's equally wrong for people to become so self-assured of their righteousness that they lose all respect for the self-determination of others and seek to either kill them or to deny them the same rights they seek for themselves.

And certainly religion should never be the enemy of science. None of us were around for the creation of the universe and so to get into shouting matches about whether is started with God speaking or a singularity exploding is pointless. We just don't know. Better that we accept that as stewards of this earth, we need to learn all we can so that we can do our jobs as well as possible.

BTW, during yesterday's NASCAR race, they had a microphone in Kyle Petty's car and when they replayed the contact he had with Matt Kenseth, Ol' Kyle dropped the F-bomb.

If half-a-second of Janet Jackson's breast was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and with all the self-righteous blather about how we -- whoever "we" really is -- need to crack down on vulgar television, what should be the appropriate federal response to this horrible offense?

"None of us were around for the creation of the universe and so to get into shouting matches about whether is started with God speaking or a singularity exploding is pointless."

Except the Biblical account says God spoke creation into being so the "shouting match" is not pointless for those who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and a true account of the event.

Read Gilbert Keith's 'Everlasting Man'.
========================

Based on historical records, I think atheism or secularism holds the worst record in mass murder and its tendency to impose its dictatorial nature when it gains power. Fascism and communism is the visible manifestation of fundamentalist atheism or secularism. These fundamentalist secularists believe that they can build heaven on earth (ie. their progressive or liberal utopia). And they think that they can use gov power to shut down and imprison people who holds different views or faiths. I thinks the SF decision is simply another expression of the dictatorial display of fundamentalist secularism under the name of progressive faith.

Don't you just love the word "artistic"? It can be used as a big old umbrella to cover whatever you are trying to cover up for.

TH, the bible can be infallible without every word being literal. I believe that God is eternal -- he exists outside of time -- and that he was the motive force in the creation of the universe. But I do NOT believe that he literally spoke and things just happened. I think that is a metaphor. For the bible to be both accurate and understandable to all people in all times, there needs to be the use of figurative language in places to explain things which were -- and in many cases still ARE -- beyond our ability to comprehend.

BTW, forget to add the fundamentalist secularists/progessives also show that they are willing to impose their faith on other people by force.

jhow, what is the alternative? Would you rather have some government committee deciding what is or is not appropriate for other people to imagine and bring to fruition on stage or screen?

If there is some entertainment out there which offends you, do not watch it. You can also explain to others why you are offended by it and encourage them to join you in staying away. But this idea that government has to "protect" us from being offended by culture is far more dangerous than any obscenity I can think of.

But if our faith leads to violence, as is the case in many Islamic societies and occasionally in the US as with Paul Hill or David Koresh and their ilk, then clearly it's doing us harm.
------------------------------------------------
I also to this list the violence of the anti-war fundamentalist progressives/secularists, which is more widespread.

But this idea that government has to "protect" us from being offended by culture is far more dangerous than any obscenity I can think of.
------------------------------------------------
Yet the fundamentalist progressives in SF can ban people displaying their opposing views while only allowing the views approved by them.

LAI, if secularists are trying to ban entertainment based on content that offends them, they are just as wrong as people who use religion for the same reason.

Believe what you choose and live your life according to your beliefs, but don't use your beliefs to dictate to others who may believe differently.

Believe what you choose and live your life according to your beliefs, but don't use your beliefs to dictate to others who may believe differently.
--------------------------------------------------
I agree with you and that 's why I think the fundamentalist progressives/secularists who want to impose their only approved views is wrong. And recent history shows that these fundamentalist secularists (eg. fascism/communism) have been willing to mass murder to impose their vision. I think the fundamentalist progressive impusle of the dems in Congress right is also a danger. These dems are trying to use the power of gov to shut down talk radio.

"If there is some entertainment out there which offends you, do not watch it. You can also explain to others why you are offended by it and encourage them to join you in staying away. But this idea that government has to "protect" us from being offended by culture is far more dangerous than any obscenity I can think of."

Along the same line, the government shouldn't sponser 'art' or 'entertainment' either. If it is art worthy of being produced, a private sponser should gladly pay for it.

It is unusual, culturally, for the civil organizing power to bifurcate as it has, recently; one wonders whether a progressive reunification could work sans old school religious principles. And then you note 'Inconvenient Truths'.

It's worrisome.
=========

LAI, I'm sure it confounds you that we are in agreement on this. One group of people should not be able to censor the views of others or impose their own beliefs.

Engineer, I'm primarily in agreement with you. Any publicly-financed art should become the property of the people. An example of that might be a building which would be used for public gatherings or a documentary or entertainment program on a public network which could be shared and used freely by all.

The government should not fund projects which result in individually-owned real or intellectual property.

Paul Hamilton:
Would you rather have some government committee deciding what is or is not appropriate for other people to imagine and bring to fruition on stage or screen?

I very much agree. Politicians (i.e. the government) should NOT attempt attempt to coerce (either directly or through innuendo) media in to airing only what they, the politicians deem to be appropriate.

democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=262624

Uh, speaking of Janet Jackson's breast expose, if you think only fundamentalists were outraged about that, you are dead wrong. Quit blaming fundamentalists for everything that offends people. Some things are just offensive to many people, period. It's called standards.

Uh, speaking of Janet Jackson's breast expose, if you think only fundamentalists were outraged about that, you are dead wrong.

Damn right Jo. I was outraged because I was getting a beer when it happened.

It's a boob, people, not the end of the world. Was it particularly appropriate for the venue? No, but certainly not worthy of such shocked admonishment.

Fair enough Jo. But do you believe that the offense properly merited the response it got? As I said in my first note, this whole thing came across to me as religious and political opportunism by another group of the professionally-offended.

It was a stupid thing to do, I fully agree. But CBS was not responsible for it and for the government to fine a party which was really nothing but an OBSERVER of the events is ridiculous.

I'll tell you a show that truly offends me -- Criminal Minds. Their obsession with serial killers and the obscene details of their actions offends me a lot. As a result, I don't watch, and when it's appropriate, I share my thoughts about the show with others on forums such as this one. I do NOT think that what they're doing should be fined or censored by the government.

Jo,
I agree with you about standards. But while JJ's nipple was being flashed, how about the other ads being shown?
I can explain to my 6 year old granddaughter what a nipple is, but how would you explain the 4 hour erection medicine that is being shown also to a 6 year old?
My idea is to ban all ads, and all sex shots on the tv. I know, that would go over like flatulence in church.

LAI, I'm sure it confounds you that we are in agreement on this. One group of people should not be able to censor the views of others or impose their own beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------
That 's what the fundamentalist progressives in SF are trying to do. They imposed their only approved views on the people who hold opposite view. They are trying to censor the view opposing to their progressive belief.

Paul,
Thanks for the agreement. I am just trying to point out that the fundamentalist progressives are the problem in this case.

Maybe we can get God to abolish religion?

Maybe we can get God to abolish religion?
---------------------------------------------
The fundamentalist securalists are trying to play God by abolishing all regilions except their religon of atheism.

You should know you're not getting the whole story, or even an accurate half-story, from WND.

Much more about the Oakland case here and here.

But all of this is nonsense. The case had nothing to do with outlawing particular phrases, nor did it have anything to do with "hate speech." In fact, that phrase appears nowhere in the ruling, and for a very good reason: California does not have a law criminalizing hate speech, nor does any other state. The issue in the case was the application of Pickering, which requires judges to apply a balancing test between free speech rights and the administrative needs of the employer. And bear in mind that district and appellate judges are bound to follow precedent, so they had no choice but to apply that test as best they could.

Not that this doesn't mean the 9th's decision was necessarily the correct one, but WND completely distorts the case. You repeat their assertion that they were "threatened with summary firings -- for daring to state their faith", but lets look at the ruling:

In late February 2003, Hicks transmitted a copy of AI 71 to all CEDA employees accompanied by a memorandum that described "recent[] * * * incidents" where "flyers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation based harassment," and noted that violation of AI 71 could result in "discipline up to and including termination." Compl (Doc #1) Ex 1; Melaugh Decl (Doc #43) Ex F (Hicks Depo) at 59-63 (discussing memo).

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to put other scenarios before the court, their challenge is unripe: Plaintiffs offer no details of the flyers they wish to post or other workplace speech they wish to make, and they offer no evidence regarding
the workplace disruption that might (or might not) ensue. At most, plaintiffs point to Hicks' memo of February 20, 2003, as a threat of termination, but a reminder in a widely circulated memo that compliance with policy is a condition of employment can hardly be taken as a concrete and imminent chill on protected expression or an individually directed threat of adverse employment action.

Apparently being reminded of workplace policies = being threatened with summary firings.

Oh, and for Rushdie, try Midnight's Children. It's excellent.

Barney, that sounds like something my wife would say. She's been a Christian her whole life and still has a strong faith in God, but she's been offended so often by religious institutions that she's just down on ALL of them.

And I agree that if we could get back to the ideal described in the book of Acts where believers met in their homes and groups ever got bigger than 12 or so without dividing, and when those groups were led by the holy spirit instead of some charismatic human being, Christianity and the world as a whole would be MUCH better off.

"And it's also good for the media that the Christians are, generally, a peaceful sort nowadays. They media has already shown its willingness to be cowed by threats of violence by religious sorts (thank you, Islam); if Christians were still into that sort of thing, I bet we'd be seeing a whole lot of journalists being burned at the stake. "

In fact, Christians are persecuted in many countries, especially where Islam is prevalent or communism rules. More Christians were martyred in the 20th century than all the others before it combined, but where would you hear about that in the MSM. There is much that needs work in those who call themselves Christians (especially me), but remember, verbally opposing that which offends you doesn't equal persecution.

Barney, that sounds like something my wife would say. She's been a Christian her whole life and still has a strong faith in God, but she's been offended so often by religious institutions that she's just down on ALL of them.
--------------------------------------------------
From my personal experience, I am very scared of the fundamentalist securalists imposing their vision on us. That 's why the fundamentalist progressives also scare with the same fundamentalist impulse to impose their view on people holding opposing view (as done in fascist/communist countries in contemporary history). I am also down on the fundamentalist progressive impulse of the dem congress.

"Maybe we can get God to abolish religion?"

You believe in God Googie?...LOL

LAI,

You are spot on when it comes to the left. Their religion is government, the environment, or anything else they can use to have power over others. I sent my son to a private school so he wouldn't have to be indoctrinated into that religion.

And that Janet Jackson episode was offensive precisely because it was unexpected by the viewers. If I tune in to a program that is known for its sexual overtones and images, then I have nothing to complain about when I see them. However, nobody was notified of the impending "wardrobe malfunction", nor of the fact that it was even possible. I didn't even find out about it until later that night on the news, because we turned off the TV at halftime due to the performers who were supposed to be doing the entertaining.

Did I think the FCC went a little to far after the fact? Yes, I do. But do I think the outrage itelf was justifiable? Absolutely.

I think there is a big problem with saying "religion causes more deaths than Communism" or "Communism causes more deaths than religion". By doing so, one blames an institution or structure rather than a fundamental truth about humanity - left to his own devices, mankind tends to murder, rob, rape, and destroy. You can try to cover that fact up with religion or level the playing field to eliminate the need with Communism, but the fact remains that people are generally evil and desire power over others.

I know that's not a popular belief in today's world, but it would explain a lot of things. Hate is hate, and every human is capable of it. Some use religion, others use politicdal/social/economic movements, but in the end humans are amazingly apt at devouring each other.

Had Rosie O'Donnell had a wardrobe malfunction resulting in the possible injury or death of several stage performers and onlookers, I'd be a bit more offended.

Primetime was certainly not the place for this display, but I do believe both the level of outrage and the FCC aftermath was a little much. But then, I'm a little less conservative than many here, so my view is somewhat predictable.