In response to:

Thou Shalt Not be Catholic

Raven7 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 10:12 AM
1. Legacy and Bergen have a First Amendment right to complain to whomever they want . . . just as Shaffer has a First Amendment right to speak his mind on homosexuality and abortion. Let's see whose rights the university recognizes and respects. 2. It would be more appropriate to title the article "Thou Shalt Not be Christian."
scott s. Wrote: Apr 09, 2013 6:18 PM
The first amendment only deals with the law-making powers of Congress.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 10:17 AM
The nature of the First-Amendment-Right" complain is much more substantive to the argument than you grant.

Do defenders of child molestation have "rights" to verbally attack those who want to maintain its illegality?

(Queue the rantings of the homophiles form making that comparision; unaware that they are completely incapable of understanding extreme analogy.)
Raven7 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 10:38 AM
Folks have a right to free speech on any topic, regardless of how heinous it is perceived, so long as that speech does not create a situation of clear and present danger, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. I am not a lawyer and do not know the legal niceties of defining when speech becomes "dangerous" (like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater).

The point is that the two students have right to their opinion, to verbalize it, and to petition . . . just as Shaffer has a right to verbalize his opinion on the topics at hand. IMHO, the students should lose the argument, but they have the right to make the argument.
Beethovens10th Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 10:59 AM
I contend that people do not. There are some subjects that are so heinous and counter to obvious sanity, they don't deserve a place at the table of public discourse. Saying so grants the illegitimate legitimacy.

And to counter the predictable rebuttal that no one has the right to make that distinction, I say that we must rely on our sense of self-apparent truth. If we cannot rely on this, then their truly is no bottom to the pit we find ourselves in.

For example, what if the tow activist homosexuals prevail? Does that make them 'right?' By your reasoning, it does.
Raven7 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 11:17 AM
No, it does not make them "right," and I hope that they lose.

In the end, we only assure our right to free speech on topics of our choosing by assuring the right of others free speech on their topic of choosing, regardless of how heinous we perceive it to be. Anything else means that our right can be abridged at any time. Take a look at most colleges and universities today, for example, and see how viewpoint discrimination and content discrimination prevails in all the "speech codes."
Beethovens10th Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 11:24 AM
You fail to see that if the homosexuals prevail, the point is EXACTLY that the free speech rights of Fr. Shaffer will have been abrogated. This is the AIM of the homosexual activists, to silence all dissent.

And you may argue that Shaffer will still have the right to dissent. The point is that there will be a dear price to pay for his "free speech" at no cost to the homosexual activists. This is the very definition of infringement of this right.

And with the precedent that such a case sets, you can expect the rapid acceleration of this free-speech quashing actions from the Left.
jkash1776 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 3:06 PM
YOU embody the new civilization described in Bill Bennett's book, "the death of outrage".

Also, the character that Aaron Tippin blasted in his anthem, "You've got to stand for something".

Drip drip drip.... there IS a tipping point.
jkash1776 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 3:11 PM
In case you haven't seen, we don't have free speech rights, but it's been quietly acknowledged.
Having received no 'pushback' (thank you, Baroness Thatcher) they are brazenly speaking their intolerance and bigotry, confident that they'll be able to succeed.
Effectively, homosexuality became 'normal' because the condensed national religion of secula atheism/sex/relativism/atheist psychology 'normalized' what is clearly a disorder, with horrible side effects that have not changed from what they've been in any generation, whether in the closet or openly welcomed. It was made normal and with that, we all were shifted into the rabbit hole.
jkash1776 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 3:13 PM
If Raven would just read the last two chapters of "After the Ball", the 80s gay bible, outlining two gay marketers outline for destroying conservatism and catholicism, there'd be no confusion.

We KNOW harm is meant and acting in ignorance of that is insane.
jkash1776 Wrote: Apr 08, 2013 3:14 PM
correction: We KNOW harm is meant and acting as IF we are still in ignorance of that is insane.

It was prescience, not paranoia, that prompted some social commentators to predict that gay activism would become the principle threat to religious freedoms in America. A recent incident at George Washington University provides the latest confirmation.

In 2010, the University of Illinois fired a Catholic professor who taught courses on Catholicism in the school’s religion department after a student accused him of hate speech because the professor affirmed what the Catholic Church taught about homosexual practice. After a national outcry and a swift legal response, the professor was reinstated, but the fact that he was initially fired is an absolute...