<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Into the abyss?</title>
	<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/</link>
	<description>I used to be in the middle, but they keep moving the line!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:12:43 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Polimom</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1014</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:44:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1014</guid>
					<description>Liz - 

Somewhere out there in the blogosphere's world of comments, I read one that tried to explain this thinking.  Supposedly, Christians (those who are compelled to speak out) are actually concerned that the sinners will end up in hell for their wicked ways....  and so really, they are trying to save them from this fate.   

Or something.   (sigh....)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liz - </p>
<p>Somewhere out there in the blogosphere&#8217;s world of comments, I read one that tried to explain this thinking.  Supposedly, Christians (those who are compelled to speak out) are actually concerned that the sinners will end up in hell for their wicked ways&#8230;.  and so really, they are trying to save them from this fate.   </p>
<p>Or something.   (sigh&#8230;.)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Liz</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1013</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1013</guid>
					<description>OK I get it, not freedom of speech but freedom of religion.  Thats just creepy.  I guess they wouldnt think to consider themselves covered by freedom of speech since they probably see that as some dangerous liberal propaganda thing instead of protecting the rights of all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK I get it, not freedom of speech but freedom of religion.  Thats just creepy.  I guess they wouldnt think to consider themselves covered by freedom of speech since they probably see that as some dangerous liberal propaganda thing instead of protecting the rights of all.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Polimom</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1005</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:59:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1005</guid>
					<description>If the arguments were, in fact, coming under the heading of free speech, it wouldn't be such a problematic and ominous suit.  But filing under a freedom of religion guise because they are compelled to speak out against sinners?  Not the same thing.  There are folks whose religion involves the handling of snakes, too, but they don't get to carry them into class or around a university quadrangle.

It also opens a can of worms for others, who would be quick to call themselves a religious group that sees any number of "others" as sinful.   

If the true issue is freedom of speech, and that political correctness has led to regulations denying that right, then they need to challenge on those grounds.  

 Evangelists have always made my skin crawl, and all Christians do not, in fact, feel compelled to "speak out".  Thank goodness somebody took the time to teach them some social skills.   

At the broader level, though,  I agree with Carla:  the more people are allowed to speak, the more likely we all are to be able to identify the bigots - and thus shun, ostracize, and avoid them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the arguments were, in fact, coming under the heading of free speech, it wouldn&#8217;t be such a problematic and ominous suit.  But filing under a freedom of religion guise because they are compelled to speak out against sinners?  Not the same thing.  There are folks whose religion involves the handling of snakes, too, but they don&#8217;t get to carry them into class or around a university quadrangle.</p>
<p>It also opens a can of worms for others, who would be quick to call themselves a religious group that sees any number of &#8220;others&#8221; as sinful.   </p>
<p>If the true issue is freedom of speech, and that political correctness has led to regulations denying that right, then they need to challenge on those grounds.  </p>
<p> Evangelists have always made my skin crawl, and all Christians do not, in fact, feel compelled to &#8220;speak out&#8221;.  Thank goodness somebody took the time to teach them some social skills.   </p>
<p>At the broader level, though,  I agree with Carla:  the more people are allowed to speak, the more likely we all are to be able to identify the bigots - and thus shun, ostracize, and avoid them.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Liz</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1004</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:52:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1004</guid>
					<description>I think that freedom of speech does not protect 'fighting words' , but otherwise I think at a public university there are some rights of expression that this ban may not be respecting.  Just as it's generally not possible to ban the KKK from parading just because no one likes them, the classic example, some level of objectionable speech needs to be tolerated on public property.  Yes even if it is anti-gay.  If it crosses over to an abusive level then it is illegal as is any harassment.  I wish these people would just go away but its important to protect the rights of free speech.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that freedom of speech does not protect &#8216;fighting words&#8217; , but otherwise I think at a public university there are some rights of expression that this ban may not be respecting.  Just as it&#8217;s generally not possible to ban the KKK from parading just because no one likes them, the classic example, some level of objectionable speech needs to be tolerated on public property.  Yes even if it is anti-gay.  If it crosses over to an abusive level then it is illegal as is any harassment.  I wish these people would just go away but its important to protect the rights of free speech.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: carla</title>
		<link>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1002</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 20:38:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.polimom.com/2006/04/11/into-the-abyss/#comment-1002</guid>
					<description>I'm probably in the minority, but I think this is a good thing.

These Christians are hate-filled, fear mongers who are the type to scream at funerals and incite problems. I say we let them talk loud and clear.

Then there will be absolutely no mistaking who they are...and their ugliness will be revealed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m probably in the minority, but I think this is a good thing.</p>
<p>These Christians are hate-filled, fear mongers who are the type to scream at funerals and incite problems. I say we let them talk loud and clear.</p>
<p>Then there will be absolutely no mistaking who they are&#8230;and their ugliness will be revealed.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
