Religion: Students swap Bibles for porn (Video)

I don't believe a 19th century emperor is a credible source for commentary on modern society. For that reason, I was bringing into light obamaisajoke's fallacious appeal to [doubtful] authority. I did this by using another one of Napoleons quotes that most people would quickly recognize as not applicable to the modern mindset. Never did I bring his character into question.

Traditionally, an ad hominem attack would be something like: "You can't believe this guy because he thinks Obama is a Joke, or he cheated on his wife, or he smokes marijuana, or he's simply a jack-ass."

Better thank religion for what? Keeping the masses dumb and content?

Who needs to worry about how shitty your life is now if your promised an eternal life of awesomeness when you die?

Wrong its the other way around. Most of the rich are conservative not liberal. And what Bonaparte said is absolutely true. Religion is used to keep poor people from exacting revenge against the rich. When Bonaparte made that comment, what you call LIBERALISM didn't even exist.

bono geldof..ahh al gore..sean penn ..the entire hollywood liberal community..

but my point is..those people in texas..the ones you guys are trying to piss off....the only thing keeping them from ripping your ass apart is religion........

think about it..

of course religion sends you in a frenzy..maybe you need to get your ass kicked..

Maybe the whole right wing nut self appointed gods need to have their genitals cut off and shoved down their throats?

What Bonaparte said may have been true at the time and perhaps even in different modern cultures, but I maintain that it does not apply to modern day America. According to Dr. Ruby Payne, who has written extensively on poverty, the driving forces of people in poverty are survival, ENTERTAINMENT, and relationships. I propose that in modern American society drugs and entertainment satiate the masses far more effectively than religion. Television, internet, video games and radio did not exist in Napoleon's days so when people were miserable they had to turn to religion to cope with daily life. In modern America as long as a person has a TV (over 99% of American homes do) and especially if they have the internet, they can go through daily life without having to turn towards religion and still be satisfied.
http://district.nashua.edu/myclass/dimariaj/Freshman%20Teacher%20Resources/Ruby%...

I totally agree. The text actually serves a very important purpose in illustrating the effects of propaganda, societal norms and politics throughout history.

Read the bible, parts of it practically -are- porn.

There's no need to hide the truth out of cultural reverence for the book.

I'd have to agree with this. Whether you believe in the Bible or not, it's hard to deny the influence it's had on Western culture. It's worth reading for that reason alone.

I am well aware of the lurid parts of the bible. They are nothing I could jerk off over.

I meant to say that they're content equivalent, not that you could use the bible to masturbate.

...which parts?...just a question...

Lot having drunken sex with his daughters is a classic one.

i think you're missing the point of the term "freedom of speech"

are you religious? i take it by your comment that you are...

what would jesus do? would he be stomping asses? i think not

Jesus would of not said a word and just prayed...

believe in the power of prayer christian!!!!.. and dont say a word!!!

i am not religious, or a christian... so go F off :-) (smiley face)

Freedom of speech does not mean you can call someone a shithead to their faces and get away, no harm no foul. Ever heard of slander? Libel?

I'm not Jesus, speculation on his behalf is completely irrelevant, as is my own personal religious belief system. The matter at hand is that these kids are just trying to pick a fight because they think they're entitled to attention. They aren't.

Slander and libel refer to denigrating someone's stature in life with false claims about their person.

Calling someone a "shithead" is not libel or slander. Neither is this porn/bible exchange.

This is a perfect example of what free speech is for, making political points that make people uncomfortable.

No they aren't, they're making a political point that you're ignoring because you're upset.

The bible contains more "smut" then even some of the dirtiest porn films. Bestiality, incest, rape, sex with children, etc. Most of it, especially the old testament, couldn't be shown on tv. And its advocates claim children should be reading it.

....I don't follow the logic

The phrase you're looking for is "neither libel nor slander." The way it reads above implies that it is not both, but possibly one of the two. I apologize for using an apparently too ambiguous example; suppose I called a police officer a power hungry waste of oxygen? Do you suspect he would greet these hostilities with diffused eagerness?

They aren't making a political point, they're hiding behind the guise of a political point. If I opened a carnival game called "shoot the monkeys out of the tree" and used, instead of monkey dolls, manikins of the president, would it be represented as a political display of Obama's whimsical detachment from down to earth issues, or would it be attacked as flagrant racism and aggression? There's only one right answer here, and the door swings in an infinite number of directions.

Neither/nor is an unnecessary clarification and although "or" can logically mean not both but one or the other, it is totally grammatically accurate to use it interchangeably with "and" for logical purposes. And I'm not making that up, formal logical language uses them interchangeably. A.B or AvB can be both be used with or.

Plus it's not as if you didn't know what I was talking about. So why did you bring it up? =|

If you call a police officer a power hungry waste of oxygen, that is constitutionally protected speech. His reaction is irrelevant to its legality. If he reacts by arresting you, he's in the wrong. And what if it was accurate given the circumstances?

Slandering or committing libel against that police officer would be saying that he raped a child on duty, when he didn't.

Your comparison of this to shooting monkeys is totally stupid. Their political point is that the bible contains much of the same material as pornography, far worse in fact. I've made this point several times now.

so do you think every missonary that preaches the word of "god" deserves to get stomped as well?

These Christian complainers really need to learn to turn the other cheek and pray for their enemies and bless them too. That is what Jesus would do.

I hope they get stomped too. Violent, hateful, Southern pseudo-Christians belong in jail.

Raid some hotel rooms, Gideon won't mind.

Thats an idea thanks

Well, yeah, it is your right to say that.

But keep in mind, you just compared porn to hanging people. If you think they're equivalent, you oughta see a psychologist.

No, that would all be incest porn.

"Atheists have to appear more tolerant and open minded than religious people."

Yeah and hows that been working out for us? Atheists are the most distrusted group in America.

See! We arent all a bunch of stupid hicks...!

Having the freedom to possess a gun doesn't mean you have the freedom to shoot people genius.

And why should someone be shot for this? You're offended? Too bad.

Isn't it conservatives who are always whining about "PC" culture? Hypocrites.

No I know, there is a big atheist tv show that I like to watch in Texas.

People stereotype Texas too much.

your really missing my point here..that is my point just because you have a right to something you cannot recklessly exercise it............

what these atheists are doing is reckless and intolerant..and if we try to stop them what is it that hide behind in....FREEDOMS OR RIGHTS but misses the "Having the freedom to possess a gun doesn't mean you have the freedom to shoot people" idea..

your rendition of PC is very..hummm questionable...

If these students are being intolerant and hateful in what they are doing, what is the difference between what they are doing and the Teabaggers who carry signs hating on immigrants? Or Christians who carry signs saying "God hates fags'? Or Christian politicians who call minorities dogs who breed? Why should they get to do what they want and its called "doing god's will" and them calling the bible "smut" is "intolerant".

Your being a hypocrite to hate on the students and not be equally appalled by the actions of Christian haters.

That post was literally nonsensical. Take more than ten seconds to post something please and formulate a coherent argument when you do that.

Free speech IS free speech, there is nothing you can say short of threats against someone's life or revealing national security secrets that is illegal. Period.

You have the right to say whatever you want and what the fuck is the POINT of free speech if you can't say something controversial? There isn't one, we'd all just sit around agreeing with each other all day.

And you're a moron if you think gun possession equals the right to commit murder.