[Vision2020] Angry Hens, Roosters & Marriage Ceremony Objection (Bitter Motive?)

[Ted Moffett]

Many essential ideas in this thread have already been aired, including
the perennial "If you object to a post's subject, delete, rather than
attempt to squash the subject, and hamper free speech (my wording)."

But "Angry Hens" as a subject heading?  Several of the most vociferous
on Vision2020 regarding a certain local church's ideology and conduct
in this case are male, and thus not "hens."

It should be more than obvious from past data, to certain self
appointed guardians of Vision2020 propriety, that to object to certain
subjects is likely to make some "mad as a wet hen," thus inspiring
even more in-depth detailed posts about the exact subject objected
to...

Not a very effective tactic to suppress posting on that subject!

If we are to defend the right of free speech to publish a book
regarding slavery in US history that claims “There has never been a
multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and
harmony in the history of the world" (p. 24)
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsononslavery.htm , why not also
defend the right to speech that objects to a marriage that might
endanger children?

It appears relevant to this discussion that some marriage ceremonies
include a plea for those who object to the marriage to speak out
before they tie the knot, so the crude arrogant command to "butt the
f--k out" might be against the interests of the community, expressed
in the marriage ceremony objection plea, given marriage is not a
contract that is only of interest to those being married, when
children are a likely outcome.

The following source indicates that objections to marriage should
involve only actual violations of the law, and that objections should
be given before the wedding:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_object_during_a_wedding_ceremony

>From website above:

"Objecting at a wedding ceremony can be very hurtful and embarrassing
so all objections should be given before the wedding. Never do to
others what you wouldn't want someone to do to you. Making a public
spectacle to highlight your objections would suggest a bitter motive.
Many service orders no longer even include the option for obvious
reasons.

However if the people being married are committing a crime by getting
married you must object. Of course you can only object for a valid
legal reason, like bigamy; not because you simply don't like the idea
of the two people getting married. The Minister requires anyone to
"show just cause" why they cannot be married. Note the word "just",
this means a cause that would be sustained in a court of law."
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 5/5/11, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:

> Above, Paul writes: "I'm glad that his church elders are working with him in
> an attempt to improve his life."
>
> But that is the issue. HOW can the elders improve his life? What is the
> recidivism rate for sex offenders, child molesters? What is the recidivism
> rate for sex offenders or child molesters WHO RECEIVE TREATMENT? But somehow
> we're to believe that Doug Wilson can do better? Holy crap. This is the
> celebration ignorance gone too far.
>
> Kai writes: "As I argued before, it is the community's right to choose what
> is socially acceptable."
>
> But the pedophile shows that this view is BS. If the community says that it
> is socially acceptable for adults to have sex with children, the community
> is wrong. Period. No amount of philosophy is going to wreck this rule.
>
> This is the area where the right wing view of tolerance is shown to go too
> far. Church elders don't have the right to say that they are experts about
> human psychology merely because they are church elders. The idea that
> knowledge is socially constructed and that all viewpoints are equally valid
> is bogus and easily refuted (see pedophilia above). And dangerous.
>
> And how dare either of you tell Rose and others to shut up! There are at
> least five of us who find this news interesting and who are thankful for it.
> And two of you who think it is unworthy of public discussion.
>
> Let free speech reign and damn those who speak against it! Please use delete
> rather than edit the content of these pages.
>
>
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > (Sing along Kai, Paul, Dougie, Dale.  You must know the words by now.)
>>
>> As divisive as you guys seem to be, I still consider myself "on your
>> team",
>> more-or-less.  Meaning that I am far more liberal than I am conservative,
>> and have more in common with the "intoleristas" than I do with Kai, Doug,
>> and Dale.  .  We just disagree on a few things, most of them having to do
>> with the perceived importance of this one church.  Though I do acknowledge
>> that I agree with Kai and Dale on some occasions (I haven't seen Doug
>> posting anywhere), mostly having to do with financial matters.  It would
>> be
>> nice if we didn't draw so many lines in the sand.  We might see areas
>> where
>> we agree, and actually learn some respect for each other.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>