Interesting Reads

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Redrob
    Confirmed User
    • Oct 2004
    • 4791

    #1

    Interesting Reads

    Senator Santorum's view on Freedom of Speech:

    "But you may have noticed that in pornography the words aren?t really the point, are they? ?Speech? implies words, rationally intelligible discussion and argument, communication. Pictures also can be ?worth a thousand words,? of course: Sometimes images are central to a political or social cause. But America?s huge porn industry is not about political debate; it is not about the communication of ideas. It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit. Based on the text of the Constitution, the courts should have recognized a hierarchy of protected ?speech,? with political speech and writing receiving the greatest constitutional protection, commercial speech less protection, and mere titillation the least of all."

    For full article, visit:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0507210812.asp

    Also, did you know that the Catholic Church keeps secret archives in each diocese? It is required by Cannon Law and records "matters of morals."

    Read more about the secret inworkings of the Catholic Church at:

    http://www.snapnetwork.org/Special_i...on%20Paper.pdf
  • SouthernGirl
    So Fucking Banned
    • Jul 2005
    • 615

    #2
    your name spelled backwards is Border

    Comment

    • Scott McD
      Too lazy to set a custom title
      • Nov 2002
      • 67792

      #3
      Originally posted by SouthernGirl
      your name spelled backwards is Border


      I Buy My High Quality Traffic Here, You Should Too!

      Comment

      • thaifan99
        Confirmed User
        • Jul 2003
        • 3029

        #4
        Redrum!!

        It?s about the commercial production of objects of titillation for profit - this bit makes me horny!
        ARE YOU A FAMILY MEMBER? CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT!

        Comment

        • Redrob
          Confirmed User
          • Oct 2004
          • 4791

          #5
          Very perceptive..... you get a gold star by your name.

          Comment

          • FunForOne
            Confirmed User
            • Nov 2003
            • 8704

            #6
            I'm not sure I agree with all of that or even that we are experienced enough to fully debate the issue.

            I think I know what he is trying to say. Freedom of Speech was given for the purpose of talking or writing against the government. (political).

            I also believe that it has to applied to all speech, not just political. Seems like he wants different levels of allowed speech.

            Not sure that will work.

            Comment

            • Redrob
              Confirmed User
              • Oct 2004
              • 4791

              #7
              I seems that he want an "activist court" to reinterpretate the Constitution to fit his own "Uber-moralistic" needs. How, unconservative is that!

              Comment

              • Redrob
                Confirmed User
                • Oct 2004
                • 4791

                #8
                It seems that he wants an "activist court" to reinterpretate the Constitution to fit his own "Uber-moralistic" needs. How, unconservative is that!


                Please excuse my typos in the above thead. I will do better.

                Comment

                • FunForOne
                  Confirmed User
                  • Nov 2003
                  • 8704

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Redrob
                  It seems that he wants an "activist court" to reinterpretate the Constitution to fit his own "Uber-moralistic" needs. How, unconservative is that!


                  Please excuse my typos in the above thead. I will do better.


                  YOu are right that "re" interpreting the constitution to fit political needs is the opposite of conservative.

                  Comment

                  Working...