Apr 26, 2012 -- 12:47PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 12:42PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Apr 26, 2012 -- 11:32AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:58PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:45PM, Ken wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:31PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Apr 25, 2012 -- 6:29PM, Ken wrote:

Then so much the worse for the First Amendment.

Why? Because people are allowed to say things in public you don't like?

Because it's used as an excuse for being rude and intrusive in public.

"Rude and insensitve" can be purely subjective. You've demonstrated an extremely hostile attitude toward religion. So God only knowns (no pun intended) what you might consider "rude and insenstive" enough to be banned from public.

I'd argue you assume too much.  Not religion, but theism.  Ken's always been very polite about Buddhism.

And every Bahai, since they know all religions better than everyone else, knows that Buddhism is not theistic, so clearly any Bahai would notice Ken has a beef with THEISMS.

I don't know enough about Buddhism to discuss or argue particulars. Given my background, Christianity would be my specialty in that regard. 

Regardless, the parameters of free expression should not be decided according to anybody's "beefs."

Which has nothing to do with my point-the point was theism vs. religion.  You confused the two and likely still do since you didn't address that point and instead pretended I was discussing the nature of Amendment 1.  That was Ken, apparently you confuse issues AND people.

And given the "background" of Bahai, that it claims to interpret every religion better than the religions themselves respectively, I must assume a ZERO level of humility from any follower of Bahai; the very nature and core of that religion is arrogance, and nothing more eloquent than that.

I understand that theism and religion are not always one and the same. In fact, MTM Dave and I had an interesting exhange about that very thing.

You interjected yourself into a conversation about freedom of speech/expression, and I responded accordingly. My response was polite, and on point. Were you simply looking for an excuse to get huffy?

Again, it doesn't matter if a person's "beef" is with religion, theistic religions only, theism in general, county music vs. rock and roll, or the latest fashions in footwear. The central point still stands -- "beefs" should not determine the parameters of freedom of expression.

Your assesment of the Baha'i Faith is ignorant and shallow, thanks for sharing your personal opinon in that regard. But frankly, I don't care, and find your need to keep bringing it up somewhat obsessvie and juvenile. 

If you want to try starting a Baha'i Faith slam-fest, feel free pay another visit to the Baha'i boards.

Why would I do that?  Bahais redefine not only religions, without knowing anything about them, but also redefine words, like "discrimination".  And even when shown that Bahai leaders admit discriminating against gays, Bahais deny such things....   Only the Bahai were arrogant enough on this site, to claim that "atheism" and "monotheism" are the same thing....   There's no debating with liars.  Bahais use the method of "Ah Q", they are not worth the time of ordinary human beings.

My assessment is spot on:  Bahais do indeed claim to understand ALL religions better than the practitioners themselves, even though the average Bahai would fail a test on all of them other than Islam or christianity.  And again, at least mormons ADMIT they discriminate against gays.  So do fundys, so that puts Bahai below both groups.   

And it's a forum, there's no "interjecting" and if there was-it would be the Bahai, not the atheist who is "interjecting".  Your response was irrelevant as again, his beef is with theism, not religion.  Pay attention or expect to be corrected.  Choose a religion with a semblence of humility, or expect the inherent arrogance to be pointed out as crippling to all views.  

Mytmouse:

"You interjected yourself into a conversation about freedom of speech/expression, and I responded accordingly."

Excuse me, but the conversation is suppossed to be about why some theists feel threatened by a few athesist.

You've gone off topic.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 4:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Not exactly. The topic began to turn toward what, if any measures, should be taken to limit freedom of expression -- given how some people might react to their deep-seated feelings about religion and/or preaching -- either positive or negative.

Feeling of being "threatened" can, and do sometimes lead to unjust limitations on freedom of expression. 

I was repsonding to some suggesting, perhaps, that street preaching be lawfully censored. 

I said it was a breach of civility. A breach of civility may not be illegal, but that doesn't make it right. One has a moral obligation not to commit it.

Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:49PM, steven_guy wrote:

If you stand on a street corner in Australia and shout at men, women and children who pass you by that they will go to God's own concentration camp and be tortured forever for being a jew, infidel, homosexual, et cetera, then you will be arrested and charged.

Simple as that. 

I honestly don't have a big problem with that. Being told you are going to hell sounds like a threat. Threating people is generally illegal even here. Unless of course it is relgiious in nature

Apr 30, 2012 -- 4:53PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

....I was repsonding to some suggesting, perhaps, that street preaching be lawfully censored.

Yet you have been unable to show that such a thing was sugested.