<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>I, for one, am in no way trying to inhibit anyone's free speech.</span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>I'd just like to point out that whether or not this guy gets married or who he gets married to is none of our goddamned business. I feel that strongly. I would extend that same courtesy to any of you out there and your choice of a spouse, or your choice on whether or not to get married or to have kids. You're welcome.<br></span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Everyone can feel free to keep blathering on about the subject, though. By the way, I think the "angry hens" thing came from an analogy of a bunch of hens sitting around the hen house gossiping about their neighbors.<br></span></div><div><br><span></span></div><div><span>Paul<br></span></div><div><br></div><div
style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div style="font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Arial" size="2"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> Kai Eiselein <fotopro63@hotmail.com>; Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com>; "vision2020@moscow.com" <vision2020@moscow.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Friday, May 6, 2011 12:08 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Angry Hens, Roosters & Marriage Ceremony Objection (Bitter Motive?)<br></font><br>
Many essential ideas in this thread have already been aired, including<br>the perennial "If you object to a post's subject, delete, rather than<br>attempt to squash the subject, and hamper free speech (my wording)."<br><br>But "Angry Hens" as a subject heading? Several of the most vociferous<br>on Vision2020 regarding a certain local church's ideology and conduct<br>in this case are male, and thus not "hens."<br><br>It should be more than obvious from past data, to certain self<br>appointed guardians of Vision2020 propriety, that to object to certain<br>subjects is likely to make some "mad as a wet hen," thus inspiring<br>even more in-depth detailed posts about the exact subject objected<br>to...<br><br>Not a very effective tactic to suppress posting on that subject!<br><br>If we are to defend the right of free speech to publish a book<br>regarding slavery in US history that claims “There has never been a<br>multi-racial society which has existed
with such mutual intimacy and<br>harmony in the history of the world" (p. 24)<br>http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/wilsononslavery.htm , why not also<br>defend the right to speech that objects to a marriage that might<br>endanger children?<br><br>It appears relevant to this discussion that some marriage ceremonies<br>include a plea for those who object to the marriage to speak out<br>before they tie the knot, so the crude arrogant command to "butt the<br>f--k out" might be against the interests of the community, expressed<br>in the marriage ceremony objection plea, given marriage is not a<br>contract that is only of interest to those being married, when<br>children are a likely outcome.<br><br>The following source indicates that objections to marriage should<br>involve only actual violations of the law, and that objections should<br>be given before the wedding:<br><br>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_object_during_a_wedding_ceremony<br><br>From
website above:<br><br>"Objecting at a wedding ceremony can be very hurtful and embarrassing<br>so all objections should be given before the wedding. Never do to<br>others what you wouldn't want someone to do to you. Making a public<br>spectacle to highlight your objections would suggest a bitter motive.<br>Many service orders no longer even include the option for obvious<br>reasons.<br><br>However if the people being married are committing a crime by getting<br>married you must object. Of course you can only object for a valid<br>legal reason, like bigamy; not because you simply don't like the idea<br>of the two people getting married. The Minister requires anyone to<br>"show just cause" why they cannot be married. Note the word "just",<br>this means a cause that would be sustained in a court of law."<br>------------------------------------------<br>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br><br>On 5/5/11, Joe Campbell <<a
ymailto="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br>> Above, Paul writes: "I'm glad that his church elders are working with him in<br>> an attempt to improve his life."<br>><br>> But that is the issue. HOW can the elders improve his life? What is the<br>> recidivism rate for sex offenders, child molesters? What is the recidivism<br>> rate for sex offenders or child molesters WHO RECEIVE TREATMENT? But somehow<br>> we're to believe that Doug Wilson can do better? Holy crap. This is the<br>> celebration ignorance gone too far.<br>><br>> Kai writes: "As I argued before, it is the community's right to choose what<br>> is socially acceptable."<br>><br>> But the pedophile shows that this view is BS. If the community says that it<br>> is socially acceptable for adults to have sex with children, the community<br>> is wrong. Period. No
amount of philosophy is going to wreck this rule.<br>><br>> This is the area where the right wing view of tolerance is shown to go too<br>> far. Church elders don't have the right to say that they are experts about<br>> human psychology merely because they are church elders. The idea that<br>> knowledge is socially constructed and that all viewpoints are equally valid<br>> is bogus and easily refuted (see pedophilia above). And dangerous.<br>><br>> And how dare either of you tell Rose and others to shut up! There are at<br>> least five of us who find this news interesting and who are thankful for it.<br>> And two of you who think it is unworthy of public discussion.<br>><br>> Let free speech reign and damn those who speak against it! Please use delete<br>> rather than edit the content of these pages.<br>><br>><br>> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a ymailto="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>><br>>> > (Sing along Kai, Paul, Dougie, Dale. You must know the words by now.)<br>>><br>>> As divisive as you guys seem to be, I still consider myself "on your<br>>> team",<br>>> more-or-less. Meaning that I am far more liberal than I am conservative,<br>>> and have more in common with the "intoleristas" than I do with Kai, Doug,<br>>> and Dale. . We just disagree on a few things, most of them having to do<br>>> with the perceived importance of this one church. Though I do acknowledge<br>>> that I agree with Kai and Dale on some occasions (I haven't seen Doug<br>>> posting anywhere), mostly having to do with financial matters. It would<br>>> be<br>>> nice if we didn't draw so many lines in the sand. We might see areas<br>>> where<br>>> we
agree, and actually learn some respect for each other.<br>>><br>>> Paul<br>>><br>>><br><br><br></div></div></div></body></html>