OT: Man in Cathedral-Sex Radio Stunt Dies

BrassBlower · Post by **BrassBlower** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:36 pm

Food for thought:

Scene 1: I am sitting in a crowded theater. Suddenly, I jump up and exercise my right to free speech by yelling "fire!"

Scene 2: Panicked people come pouring out of the theater. Equipment is destroyed and six people are killed in the crush.

What happens next? Either:

1) There really was a fire, and I get to appear on TV as a hero. Which one of you would be first in line to pin the medal on me?

2) There was not really a fire, and I get to appear on TV as I walk into a courtroom. Which one of you wants to be my lawyer?

That having been said, rights that don't line up with responsibility are not rights at all, and neither are rights that are taken away from one person to be given to another.

Spoken like a true political conservative, huh?

mjacob · Post by **mjacob** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 12:50 pm

If there is no right of anyone to say that some things are just plain wrong, then all laws should be repealed. After all, how can you enforce your morality on a sub-culture that thinks there is nothing wrong with hate speech, theft, arson, rape, and murder?

Those things in the quote above are illegal b/c if everyone did them, the society would fall apart. That's a reason for them being illegal that leaves morality/God OUT of the picture.

However, I will not tolerate someone else's immorality in my church.

I don't blame you one bit. I would not tolerate it either. No one should have to.

This might be relevant to this discussion:
I came across a website a few weeks ago that I found quite offensive, for its wallpaper and its message.
www.amyfound.org/

When a religious group tries to push itself onto others, I loose all respect for it. Thats as bad as someone coming into your church and disrespecting it.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:02 pm

I'm not saying that Hitler was right. I'm not saying that having sex in a church is right. I'm saying that just because you believe something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is right or wrong for the other person, it's a more general statement, not relating to anything specific. People tend to forget that with their 'just because I think it's wrong' reason for everything.

I won't comment on this post any further, because I just end up saying the same thing over, and over and over.

Drama, drama, drama....

edited because I can't speel

Post by **Nanohedron** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:04 pm

mjacob wrote:This might be relevant to this discussion:
I came across a website a few weeks ago that I found quite offensive, for its wallpaper and its message.
www.amyfound.org/

When a religious group tries to push itself onto others, I loose all respect for it. Thats as bad as someone coming into your church and disrespecting it.

The wallpaper was just dark blue. And I didn't find anything vilifying or inflammatory going on, just an overall sense of addressing society's percieved ills by the means of personal and apparently standard Christian faith. What problem? I didn't feel that anybody was pushing anything on me. Heck, I wouldn't even have found that site, much less gone into it (exercising my right to ignore it). Hmmm...

Do you find dark blue to be offensive?

mjacob · Post by **mjacob** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:12 pm

no, dark blue is fine. Cerulean blue is nice too. My gripe was with the stars of david with a cross superimposed onto them.
That I find offensive.
And the purpose of " descipling our nation" is disturbing to me. Sounds like "lets go out and convert as many people as we can" mentality, which turns my stomach.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:29 pm

mjacob wrote: no, dark blue is fine. Cerulean blue is nice too. My gripe was with the stars of david with a cross superimposed onto them.
That I find offensive.
And the purpose of " descipling our nation" is disturbing to me. Sounds like "lets go out and convert as many people as we can" mentality, which turns my stomach.

Oh, now I see what you're talking about re: the Star of David superimposed onto the cross. As one who grew up among that sort of thing, I didn't find it unusual, because many Christians feel strong ties with Judaism (whether mistaken or not): Christianity arose out of Judaism, after all. But I can now imagine that such a thing might be offensive, especially to Jewry. Again, to many Christians this symbolism would be an acknowlegement of spiritual roots.

As to "discipling (and the "verbing" of America continues apace :roll: ) our nation"...well, they can always try. So long as they say their piece and leave it at that, I can go my own way with no ill will wasted.

BrassBlower · Post by **BrassBlower** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 1:54 pm

Cranberry wrote:edited because I can't speel

Good one, Cran!

Maybe I'll see you in the chat tonight, if I ever make it!

Post by **Nanohedron** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:05 pm

Cranberry wrote:I'm not saying that Hitler was right. I'm not saying that having sex in a church is right. I'm saying that just because you believe something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is right or wrong for the other person, it's a more general statement, not relating to anything specific. People tend to forget that with their 'just because I think it's wrong' reason for everything.

I don't.

Keeping in mind differences of opinion doesn't invalidate -for me- my own sense of right or wrong at all. I'm still going to have my values, as are you. My values can be changed given the right persuasion, however. I don't think that this implies invalidity, except at the most philosophical of levels. Such levels of discourse do not address the needs and problems of day-to-day living, which are real and must be considered, IMO.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:01 pm

Slavery is illegal not because society can't survive if we
have slavery. Society can get by just fine with slavery,
thank you. Did for thousands of years, many societies still do.
In fact it was the effort to destroy slavery that
threatened our society.

Why is slavery illegal? Because it's wicked
and immoral. It's a fundamental injustice to the enslaved.
Moral horror is the foundation of the
prohibition against slavery.
Same goes for laws prohibiting
segregation in hiring. They're in place
for moral reasons, not becuase racial discrimination
threatened society. Segregated America
was at least as stable as it is today.

Of course there were people who
thought slavery wasn't immoral,
but that doesn't mean there was anything
thematter with people who think as I do
forcing then to give up their slaves.
There were people who thought that
segregation was a good thing, but that
doesn't mean that there was anything
wrong with people like me passing
laws that criminalized racial discrimination
in hiring.

Wouldn't want to live in a society where the
only illegal practices are those that tear
society apart--imagine the oppression we
would have to allow; or where nothing can
be prohibted simply because it's wrong,
Best

Soineanta · Post by **Soineanta** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 4:46 pm

What a great discussion, and I think a really important one. I agree that morality is relative, and for that reason we need to just step back and let people believe what they believe, and think what they think. It's everyone's right. It's a good cause for discussion such as this, but not a reason for insult or slandering, or getting it on in a church.

Just one thing I wanna comment on...

Ridseard wrote: Banning sex and nudity on TV isn't going to affect the root of the problem.

I don't think any one thing will ever kill the root of any problem. But TV is now the mainstream of our culture and many cultures, and a huge influence. No matter what we practice as an individual, I don't think anyone can deny this. If we were to ban crudeness on TV now, it would prevent the next generation from growing up exposed to it on a daily basis. And with the population explosion, that can add up to a whoooole lot of people. Would this make everything sunshine and lollipops? Of course not. As someone said earlier on this topic, crudeness has been around nearly as long as mankind. But it would certainly help. Not that you have these characteristics, Ridseard-- but I think one of the biggest problems of our mindset today is the growing amount of apathy and pessimism, and the glorification of these characteristics. I read an article recently called (I believe) "The Cynical Smirk" that talked about this. That was in relation to the environmental crisis, but it ties in with lots of society's issues -- not many people voting, increasing suicide rates (you hear "I just don't care about anything" more and more), etc.

I don't think that was really needed, or really relevant.. but I had to get it out of my system! Something to think about, at least.

Have a great day all.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:43 pm

Y'know, considering that I was trained in journalism, it is almost embarassing how often I meet folks who are better at expressing something than I am. Thank you Jim Stone. You put it very well indeed.

I want to make one thing clear that is not part of the main thrust of this thread. I oppose censorship by government or any other entities. However, I uphold the right and responsibility of the citizenry to boycott offensive, inappropriate, or just plain inane media. If it isn't doing you any good or harm, it is probably neutral in how it affects you. If it is harming you (and I don't want to argue over whether sex and violence on TV is harmful - I think it is, but I am aware that others on this board probably do not, let's not bicker) you should avoid it. If it is edifying, then certainly seek out more of the same.

The thing is, TV programming is almost all money-driven. If you want to get rid of any of it, you have to get the monetary support away from the programs. I outlined a method for doing just that earlier that is totally legal, moral, and inarguably within the rights and abilities of anyone who is reading this and is capable of sending a letter. You boycott the companies that support the trash and you write to tell them so and why. Simple as that.

If you are too lazy to do this (I am, so it isn't really much of an insult), just turn off the TV and do something real. After I finish here, I will be going out into the garage to work on a little pseudo-mandolin I am making from a plaid cookie tin. I may string it with nylon and call it a mando-uke. Not to that point in the project, yet. Still, it is something that brings me pleasure and that will last for a lot longer than a memory of the junk on TV. What could YOU be doing instead of watching the box?

-Patrick

Marko · Post by **Marko** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:35 am

jim stone wrote:Slavery is illegal not because society can't survive if we
have slavery. Society can get by just fine with slavery,
thank you. Did for thousands of years, many societies still do.
In fact it was the effort to destroy slavery that
threatened our society.

Why is slavery illegal? Because it's wicked
and immoral.

define "wicked" and "immoral" without making reference to personal beliefs or the will of the majority please Jim. one of the problems with arguments like this is that people tend to use loose, fuzzy words.
Why is [blank] illegal? Because it's wicked and immoral.
this is a sentence that can be used to illegalise(?) anything, from sex before marrage, to McDonalds.
mjacob didnt say the only things illegal should be things that tear up society, he stated the things in the quote all did.

Patrick · Post by **Patrick** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:15 am

Acceptance of people deliberately and knowingly desecrating somebody's house of worship is detrimental to our society. It means that we as a people do not wish to protect the rights of those who worship there. Instead, we have adopted an anything-goes mentality that says we can't interfere with individuals.

Morality and decency get a rather cynical response from a lot of people nowadays. This is a shame. Ultimately, if we can all agree on a few things, we can get along a little better.

First, I believe that all human beings have an innate value and worth. Assuming innocence, I will say that all human beings are of equal value. Yes, this stems from my religious beliefs, but do you really argue against it?

Slavery is immoral and wicked because it is a degradation and devaluation of certain people. Murder is immoral and wicked because it is the destruction of a human life that has value and worth. Segregation is immoral because it is based on the idea that some people are not good enough to associate with other people, denying the value and worth of one group.

It is fairly easy to see that desecration of a holy place is immoral and wicked because it denies that other people have the right to keep their places of worship decent and to define what is and isn't acceptable in the building they built and support and in which they worship.

If people want to get morally relativistic on this, define the limits of what can be called moral. I like the old statement that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Well, your right to swivel your hips ends where my awareness of it begins. Not in the sense of knowing that because you have kids you must have consummated a relationship. That's just obvious. I mean that I don't want to know the specifics of anyone else's relationships and I certianly don't want them in a place I consider holy.

Does that cover immoral and wicked?

-Patrick

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 11:51 am

I just read this whole thread, and one topic kind of caught my attention.

FASTING (except water) is generally good for most people. Of course some shouldn't do it at all--as is the case with certain debilitative diseases such at TB, or over-do it because is has it's limitations. It's Nature's own universal remedy. Dr. Pentacost once said that if you take away food from a sick man's stomach, you have not begun to starve the man, but the disease.

Most grown individuals (in the western world) carry anywhere from 10-30 extra pounds of bagage around in their intestines. The functional activities of the whole system can become distorted.

Fasting is one of the best ways to clear the brain, or to rid a cold virus. Usually, the stomach and intestinal track are emptied by the 3rd day and the benefits start to take effect. The blood pressure is lowered, the pulse rate slows down, body temperature is reduced, metabolism slown down...all kind of comparable to a deep sleep. The lining of the stomach and intestine, which ordinarily acts as a sponge for the absortion of food, is now reversed and eliminating toxins from the system. The breath becomes sour...the tongue coated (a mirror of what's inside), and even the teeth will begin to sweat a thin film to the surface. Hunger ceases because of this condition, and draws on reserves.

There is a big difference between fasting and starvation. The body's intelligence should be trusted to know when one is going from one stage to the other. When hunger occurs...that's a good sign. Hunger will be felt in the mouth, not the stomach, the tonge becomes redish (not coated), the eyes get real white, and the pulse and heart rate return to normal. Knowing how to break the fast is a learned talent. This is where many mess up.

Fasting is not the real cure though, it's only a means to give the body an opportunity to become more capable of healing itself. People who only eat once a day actually fast, to a large degree, everyday.

jim_mc · Post by **jim_mc** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 8:25 pm

Something someone said made me want to clarify a point. The couple in question did not have sex in the church as an act of protest or civil disobedience, they did it in order to win a contest.

Now, I blame the guys who planned the contest to a certain extent, as they were exploiting the contestants' exhibitionist tendencies. I also lay some blame at the feet of the sponsor who provided the prize, because he was fully aware of what was going to happen. Contestants were provided with a list of places and acts with corresponding point values. Churches were listed.

The sponsor of the event was Samuel Adams Brewery, and its owner, Jim Kuch (sp?). Mr. Kuch has since tried to distance himself from the events, but he knew exactly what was going on, as this was the second annual "Sex for Sam" contest. Sam as in Sam Adams beer. That's really what they called it.The prizes (as they did the previous year) included an expense paid trip to Boston and a guided tour of the brewery.

Other Opie and Anthony games and pranks included "Guess What's in My Pants," in which the hosts tried to discern how a female caller had groomed her pubic hair by the sound the phone made when rubbed on said area, and "Whip 'em Out Wednesday," or "WOW," in which women were encouraged to expose themselves out their car windows to listeners who displayed the WOW bumper sticker. They had a woman go to the live morning television show with Katie Couric (I don't know the name of the show) and expose her breasts to the camera. She had "WOW" written across her stomach. And they had listeners lined up at a Hillary Clinton appearance chanting "Show us your hooters!" and "Whip 'em out!" to Mrs. Clinton.

The show was an adolescent male's sex/breast obsessed fantasy that regularly degraded female listeners and callers. Drunkenness and drug abuse were treated as humorous or glamorous. Any males who criticized their actions were instantly labelled "fag." None of their humor was satirical, farcical or ironic. They actually seemed to think that what they were doing was funny on face value.

I support everyone's right to free speech, but as others here have suggested, there are many better uses for that freedom.