It's not something to build a society on, but it'd be nice if everyone tried to live by it. If people looked at a situation and thought "how can I avoid hurting these people" instead of "who am I allowed to hurt" I'd wager we'd all get along a bit better. It's not a definition of where the true boundaries of freedom are, it's just one way of approaching your own personal freedom.

Theres a large philisophical debate between 'Love your neighbor like yourself' and 'Don't do unto others that which you wouldn't want done to you'

The first one is nicer, but the second one makes a better society.

Is that supposed to be a reply to what I said?

It is

Me-> <- You

Care to explain it? Are the two statements you have there supposed to be restatements of the two statements I had? Or is it supposed to suggest that just because something seems nice doesn't necissarily mean it'd result in a better society?

ahh, sorry, I thought those phrases were so cliched that they were common knowledge.

The difference between 'love your neighbor like yourself' and 'don't do unto others that which you don't want done unto you' is that one is active and the other is passive. But they both share the same problem that they are based on what you like, so if you happen to be a pyschopath those two phrases may end up with you hurting people when you thought you were just helping.

One causes you to perform actions for other people... i.e. being nice, while the other stops you from doing actions... i.e. not being mean.

'Not being mean' tends to create a more stable living place than 'acting nice' but at the same time, it creates a place most people would not want to live in. But, without a well defined sense of 'self' and knowing what you want both phrases become useless.

Phrases are fine and dandy but they don't fit everything. Not even maths is absolute under certain circumstances (so I'm told...I hate maths) so how can the human experience be coined into a pretty saying?

Life is just a bowl of cherries.

That's all fine and good, but what I'm saying is that it would be preferable for people to limit their own use of freedoms, so as not to hurt others, rather than trying to stretch their freedoms to hurt as much as possible. I feel like the group that is the subject of this thread is doing the latter, pushing the freedom of speech to it's limits in order to bring mental anguish to the family of this poor man. I'm suggesting that they should instead perhaps look at the scenario and realize that they'll be ruining a funeral that means a lot to this family, and perhaps find another place to give their message. I know that they won't do that, and I know why they won't do that, but I still think they should.

Daganev, you know that comparing the right to have post #166 and the right to mourn your son in his funeral without a bunch of idiots spoiling that already bad moment is called demagogia?
If we're going to follow that course of debate, I'll withdraw.
It's like comparing my right to survive without being killed by a guy with a gun with my right to have a unique hair colour. Out of place.
Of course, if you had a person telling you how he has been dreaming for ages about being in the post #166, and you write a post just to spoil that person wish, then yes, the cause about limited freedom is still aplicable. But we're more sensible than that, aren't we?
You see, by being alive you're spoiling my freedom to live in a world without a Daganev on it, would you call this claim a sensible claim or just blatant stupidity?

I'm not comparing the rights, I was demonstrting how any freedom you choose affects another person's freedom... there was no comparison between freedoms.


Just like if I'm buying a choclate bar, I can't buy a can of soda with the same money, and if I'm trying to purchase an island near Fiji, I can't build a new hospital with the same money. Those two purchases are not really comparable but the same principles apply.

Hey guys. These folks are just screwed up. I've gone to church my whole life and been the good lil' Christien boy but these people have serious issues. First off they're very incorrect in many of their assumptions, #1 God doesn't hate gays, and so we shouldn't either, I thinks it's wrong but I'm not going to go shove that in anybody's face. (Unless they ask me or it's applicable to the topic.) #2 9/11 was a horrible thing and I am really sickend by people who laugh at it, I generaly get pissed off by people like this because they give the Church a bad name. But it was a good thing in in that it showed alot of people in the States what much of the world goes through daily.

So please don't take what these say as the way the whole Church acts and views these topics. Sorry if the stuff I posted on was a few pages back.

Cheers everyone drinks on me!

BTW is the typeing acting like it's set to insert to any of you? Mine is real screwy.

What do you mean by "the Church"? I assume you mean Catholic Church. Phelps is a Southern Baptist or a Holy Pentacostal. I believe the former. He thinks the Catholic Church (And just about any other christian group that isn't his own) is going to Hell.

I wanna be in the place where we walk around with our heads backwards. Dats be coo.

Sorry for the dbl but that last one was actin' funny.

@ Dagnev- The verse actually reads "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."(If you use the KJV.) In a modern rendition of the text it says treat others the way you want to be treated, and the point of it is the same as love your neighbor as yourself. There is not any diffrnce between their meanings, they are simply the same thing stated twice.

@ Quidgyboo- Those verses, or phrases, were meant to be used in conjunction with an entire chapter (or book) so they won't mean much on their own.



Agreed, these people are just being so they will be noticed, the world is full of who just do this, inside and outside the Church. Alot of people think that being a Christien gives them free reign to do what ever they want just because they are some how special. And alot of people think that because your a Christian your a . But these people do it in everything. What I mean to say is I can't figure out where they are getting the idea that they have a right to do this, it's certainly not coming from the Bible(unless they're twisting it) so they must just be your average overly biased jerk trying to make an ineffective statement.

Ok, back on topic! The freedom of speech should not be limited unto if a subject is painful or not (the funeral thing shouldn't even be under the freedom of speech that was just a sick minded thing to do) to a listener because somethings need to be said that nobody want's to hear, I mean things in general not just taboo topics, but that stuff with the signs and all isn't right IMUHO. There isn't any need for that in the first place, and they going about the "make a stand" thing the wrong way!

But I can see where they're coming from, this kind of stuff is thrown at "Christianese" people all the time.(the stuff I'm throwing) So they might see it as a way to get back at the rest of the world or something, the prob' with that is that they are reinforcing the very view that they are supposed to be fighting, like that they are all biased stuck up jerks, which is what normaly gets tossed at them. And then it just becomes a big circle, so what to think...

LOVE AND PEACE PEOPLE! Not really, but it was a nice thought while it lasted. Lets just treat this as people voicing their views in an inefective and wrong way. These people treat everyone like this, not just gays.

NOTE the 's don't stand for anything other that poopoo heads, not the word y'all were thinkin', ok?

Triple Cheers for anyone who waded through all that!

I was unaware that 'do unto others as you would them do to you' was a biblical verse, I was refrencing the American cliche's

Sorry you caught me in the middle of a post there.

I don't mean the Catholic Church I just ment the diffrent denominations all grouped together. And I totally understood that they were Baptits, In my opinion many baptists are poopoo heads, for lack of a more descriptive word, but as with any group they aren't all like this, but sadly many of them are. I was been good friends with a guy and then suddenly I couldn't play at his house any more because my dad had a beer and he saw it and his mom and dad got, PISSED OFF! Plz note that this was back when I was five or four. I've always been nondenominational so I guess many of those people that are the heart of this topic, would consider me very liberal, though I'm against baby killing and all the rest of that.

There is something wrong with the whole system though, because while all of us seem to agree that they doning some pretty nasty stuff I don't see anybody here complaining about the ten-commandments thing. Which I guess just goes to show that we are all just biased poopoo heads to somebody else. Yeah I am to. Isn't the world such a nice place?

Cheers y'all! Even if drinking will get me struck by fire and brimstone and sent straight into the pits of Hell!

Edit: @ Dagnev- I know, it's funny how the world is sometimes isn't it? Have another round!

Which ten commandments thing?

Good question, there have been many. I've almost gotten to the point where I don't care to debate with anyone about anything. But ok the ten-commandments "thing" I'm talking about was the most recent one with the big statue in the court house. It was all over the American news, though as is quite normal BBC coverd it best. I'm not going to go into extreme detail, that is what Google is for, but someone said that they were offended by it and so it ended going to the Supreme Court and they made this big issue out of it(kinda like that Pledge of Alligence thingamabober) I quit following it in the middle so I'm not sure what happend in the end, I think they took it out. My point was that many Christians look at that event and say things like"Well why can't we do something like that about abortion or gays." and so go off and do things that make them look like idiots. I can understand people being worried about religion and government being to closely intagrated, but somethings are just going to far. Kind of like going and screwing up a funeral and such. I was just trying to compare sides, thats all.

BTW Did anyone know that the Supreme Court wielding the kind of power it is, is against the constitution? I love my America! Sorry I guess I have a pretty cynical world view.

Cheers (Yet again! Don't drive tonight!)

If they ever put a statue of an abortion in front of a courthouse, these guys are welcome to take it to the Supreme Court. I'd even help them!

Actually, if I'm reading this right, you're wrong. The Supreme Court, from either an Activist or Restraintist stand point, is bound to protect the letter of the Constitution. Freedom of Religion also means that they cannot promote one religion over another. So, until I see a stone carving of the Quran, the Torah, as well as symbols of equitable value to other religions (that is, a group of more than 1,000,000 followers) it IS violating the Constitution. Seperation of Church and State means that there can be nothing like prayer in school. As in, when a public school's football team prays before a game, it is ILLEGAL. When the christians gather out around the flag pole infront of my school and pray before 1st period, it's ILLEGAL. PUBLIC school prayer groups are, again, ILLEGAL.

Meaning the Supreme Court was in it's full rights telling them to get rid of it. Not only in it's rights, but completing it's obligation.