PETA Crashes Victoria's Secret Show

[nickel]

NEW YORK — Victoria's Secret doesn't put on a typical fashion show. Besides strategically draped models, Thursday's show featured musical numbers, acrobats and even a runway showdown between a model and anti-fur protesters.

Activists for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals rushed the stage as Gisele Bundchen strutted down the runway in a beaded bra and panties, thigh-high black stockings and red strappy heels. The four female protesters, carrying signs that read "Gisele: Fur Scum," shouted at the supermodel as she calmly completed her runway turn.

The protesters were taken away, the lights went down and the segment of the show that was interrupted was redone. As Bundchen strode out for the second time in the outfit, the audience erupted into applause for the composed supermodel.

The dramatic confrontation was oddly fitting in a show that featured tried-and-true black lace numbers as well as everything from clear go-go boots with Day-Glo lingerie to fur caps paired with moccasin boots. And wings, lots of wings.

"This year we really worked much harder to develop a connection with hot-off-the-runway products," said Grace Nichols, president and CEO of Victoria's Secret Stores.

Longtime Victoria's Secret model Heidi Klum and Sugar Ray front man Mark McGrath served as hosts, while R&B trio Destiny's Child sang "The Eight Days of Christmas" and salsa singer Marc Anthony performed "Tragedy."

"We do see it as entertainment, and we do put on a show," chief marketing officer Ed Razek said.

The show, in its seventh year, attracted a varied group of celebrities. Huddled up together were Donald Trump, girlfriend Melania Knauss and former Talk magazine publisher Tina Brown. Two seats away was sports broadcaster Ahmad Rashad, and rounding out the front row were soap queen Susan Lucci, Sex and the City fashion designer Patricia Field and model Tyson Beckford.

"There isn't a model in the world today that wouldn't want to do this show," Razek said.

Sending women like Tyra Banks, Noami Campbell and Heidi Klum down runways wearing lingerie has proven a successful formula for the retailer, which initially envisioned the fashion show as a way to publicize its Web site, Razek said. After attracting record traffic in two Internet broadcasts, ABC picked up the show in 2001 and broadcast it as a one-hour special. The 2002 show, titled "Christmas Dreams & Fantasies 2002," will air Nov. 20 on CBS.

link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70441,00.html)

[faither]

Protest is great until it interferes with the activities of people who aren't bothering anybody else. My only hope is that these PETA wackos care as much about people as they do about animals. :angry:

[nickel]

Originally posted by Yossarian
need pictures of said models :P

:rolleyes: check the link

[blueindian]

Originally posted by faither
Protest is great until it interferes with the activities of people who aren't bothering anybody else.

huh? what good is protest if it doesn't interfere with anybody else? if i'm going to protest something, i want to make sure it bothers the people i'm protesting.

say, for instance, i want to protest the selling of fur. i'd go do it at a place where fur is being sold. We'll call that place Acme Fur, Inc. Now if I protest in the parking lot of Acme Fur, it's likely to interfere with both the retailer and the patrons. But that's the point...i want to interact with them in an attempt to get my viewpoint across. It would have a much greater impact than if i conducted the same protest in the parking lot of Acme Grocery Store, where it probably wouldn't really bother anyone.

in the context of this story, peta protested at the VS runway show because they sell fur. the same protest would have been silly had they done it at some other fashion show here they weren't modeling/selling fur.

just my .02.

[nickel]

i am so sick of hearing about PETA protestors. they do seem to care more about animal rights than human rights imho.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
i am so sick of hearing about PETA protestors. they do seem to care more about animal rights than human rights imho.

i don't think they care more about animal rights than human rights, it just that they have 'picked their battle'. one cannot be an activist for every cause under the sun. further, animals cannot speak out for themselves, so if their situation is to improve, humans must speak out for them.

[nickel]

tell me then how we could effectively test new cosmetics, medicine, and other products to determine safety for humans?

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
tell me then how we could effectively test new cosmetics, medicine, and other products to determine safety for humans?

first off, you are entirely missing the point of this protest. they were not protesting animail testing. they were protesing the selling of FUR. these are entirely different issues. fur animals (for the most part) live horrible lives in miserable, cramped conditions for the sole purpose of making a hat or a coat. that is what these folks were protesting.

as to your question: there a several other ways we can test cosmetics. company such as Aveda and CitreShine(and a ton of others) test their cosmetics on human voluneteers. in the case of a cosmetic being to potentially too harsh to test on humans, there are tests than can be done in petri dishes at the cellular level as well as computer modeling than can be done that can predict human reaction to the ingrediants much better than dropping the components into the eyes of a rabbit. (in my opinion, if the stuff is potentially too harsh to test on humans, we shouldn't be making it anyway, but that's another story)

testing new medicines in different, and i won't argue that it should never be done. i will say that in a lot of cases, it is not necessary, and is only done becasuse the FDA requires it.

[nickel]

Originally posted by blueindian


first off, you are entirely missing the point of this protest. they were not protesting animail testing. they were protesing the selling of FUR. these are entirely different issues. fur animals (for the most part) live horrible lives in miserable, cramped conditions for the sole purpose of making a hat or a coat. that is what these folks were protesting.

i wasn't talking about this incident particularly. i was talking about PETA being more concerned with animals than humans in general.


as to your question: there a several other ways we can test cosmetics. company such as Aveda and CitreShine(and a ton of others) test their cosmetics on human voluneteers. in the case of a cosmetic being to potentially too harsh to test on humans, there are tests than can be done in petri dishes at the cellular level as well as computer modeling than can be done that can predict human reaction to the ingrediants much better than dropping the components into the eyes of a rabbit. (in my opinion, if the stuff is potentially too harsh to test on humans, we shouldn't be making it anyway, but that's another story)

so you think we should test new products on humans rather than animals? you just proved my point.


testing new medicines in different, and i won't argue that it should never be done. i will say that in a lot of cases, it is not necessary, and is only done becasuse the FDA requires it.

i think some PETA extremists wouldn't even go for that.

[Napoleon54]

Fur is warm. If animals aren't supposed to be used for fur, then why do they grow it?

If they've got it so bad, what with this testing and all, why don't they form a union, hire some lobbyists, and work for their own rights? Nope, they've done none of that. They're not gonna get any sympathy from me if they don't even stick up for themselves.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback

so you think we should test new products on humans rather than animals? you just proved my point.


how does that prove your point? cosmetic products are testing on human VOLUNTEERS who do it of their own free will. it does no violate any rights. now if said humans were caputured and put into cages and had chemicals tested on them against their will, that would prove your point.

[nickel]

we are not on the same level as animals period. you can't compare putting a human in a cage to putting an animal in a cage.

don't get me wrong. i am an animal lover BUT i think animals were put here for man's benefit in a number of ways.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
we are not on the same level as animals period. you can't compare putting a human in a cage to putting an animal in a cage.


i agree. my statement about putting humans in a cage was purely to demonstrate that the testing is done on animals is done against their will, whereas humans are willing participants.

the fact of the matter is that we have absolutly no need to test cosmetics on animals. therefore, it's not fair to say that because someone speaks out against it, they are more interested in animal rights than human rights, which was your point.

[nickel]

Originally posted by blueindian


i agree. my statement about putting humans in a cage was purely to demonstrate that the testing is done on animals is done against their will, whereas humans are willing participants.

the fact of the matter is that we have absolutly no need to test cosmetics on animals. therefore, it's not fair to say that because someone speaks out against it, they are more interested in animal rights than human rights, which was your point.

i am bored with this. we could just keep going around and around. we have different opinions on this matter, and thaz all.

[LegendKiller]

blueindian,
You are quite mistaken, VS does not sell one fur product, nor do they support or deny support to fur manufacturers. The protest was because there was ONE model who supports a fur manufacturer. There is a massive difference there.

Personally, I think PETA is a terrorist organization. They support ELF (either that or they ARE peta but under a different guise), who burned down a Vail ski lodge in protest of it being built in a supposed home environment for an endangered wolf (which hadn't been seen in more than 30 years in that area).

I went to the University of Minnesota, which had a VERY active PETA organization. There were 2 major instances of terrorist activity there.

1. They broke into animal testing labs at the UofM and released dozens of animals kept there for Alzheimers research. These animals had been operated on and had alzheimers brain cells inserted to see effects and find treatments. Furthermore, people such as M. J. Fox and other famous people had donated samples for research. This was a VERY long, VERY expensive, and VERY promising study by the UofM (who created the first AIDS drug...).

However, since PETA broke in and freed the animals they also destroyed computer hard drives, slides, and burned records. Furthermore, they took the animals. What is even more egregious is that they said they were keeping the animals in safe keeping. The animals (birds, rats, cats...etc), were later found on a freeway onramp DEAD. Yeah, REAL animal friendly.

2. ELF with the help of PETA broke into a UofM plant genetics lab and destroyed about $10m dollars worth of equipment and set a $30m project back by decades. This project was to create different crops that were famine and drought resistant for African countries. After that we had to have a key for every lab and if you were there past the normal time you had to have a reason, or the UofM police would bring you in. (I worked as computer support for 3 plant pathology/genetics departments).


PETA, ELF, and other organizations claim to have a moral high ground, but they are no different from other extremist oganizations. They destroy other peoples property and effect their way of life. They have no concern for anybody, or anything else but their own ideals. What does that sound like?


LK

[cheapie]

wow lkiller. what a well-articulated rebuttal! very interesting. i was laughing at how fast the animal argument got going without everybody realizing that the protesters weren't protesting VS, they didn't like Gisele Bundchen who has modeled fur.

[BS]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LegendKiller
1. They broke into animal testing labs at the UofM and released dozens of animals kept there for Alzheimers research.


2. ELF with the help of PETA broke into a UofM plant genetics lab and destroyed about $10m dollars worth of equipment and set a $30m project back by decades. This project was to create different crops that were famine and drought resistant for African countries

QUOTE]

I remember hearing about all of that

doh messed that up, but you get the point:D

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by blueindian


huh? what good is protest if it doesn't interfere with anybody else? if i'm going to protest something, i want to make sure it bothers the people i'm protesting.

...

in the context of this story, peta protested at the VS runway show because they sell fur. the same protest would have been silly had they done it at some other fashion show here they weren't modeling/selling fur.

just my .02.

in the context of this story, an ethical protest would ahve involved holding up signs, shouting slogans, and handing out fliers at the entrance. illegal actions that interfere with the legal activities of people who happen to have a different opinion than you just proves what scum you are. this tactic probably alienated more people than it converted, which makes it stupid to boot.

[cheapie]

i wish there were protesters this committed about protesting the pitiful condition of our public education system and the fact that many of our kids grow up poor, obese, and illiterate. instead, the only protesters that gain attention are ones that demonstrate for stupid causes like this.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by LegendKiller
blueindian,
You are quite mistaken, VS does not sell one fur product, nor do they support or deny support to fur manufacturers.

from the article:
The dramatic confrontation was oddly fitting in a show that featured tried-and-true black lace numbers as well as everything from clear go-go boots with Day-Glo lingerie to fur caps paired with moccasin boots. And wings, lots of wings.

point 1: by having models at the fashion show wearing fur, they are expressing support for the fur industry.

point 2: click here (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=victoria%27s+secret+fur) to execute a google search. read articles from several sources and note that the fall 2000 victorias secret catalog did, in fact, contain fur items.



i would also like to point out that i am neither a member of PETA nor do i support their really extreme activities. my original post was to point out that if people are going to protest, regardless of what are protesting, they have to do it in such a way as to interfere with the people they are protesting. Otherwise no one would even notice.

i only began talking about animal testing because i was asked a direct question about it, and i was speaking primarily of cosmetic testing, not medical/research. i totally agree that breaking into labs and destroying equipment is akin to terrorism. people involved in such crap should be prosecuted.

also, PETA does do some things that i consider to be good. mainly, they maintain a list of companies that animal test and those that don't. personally, i do not want to buy shampoo, conditioner, dish soap, laundry detergent, etc that is tested on animals because as i said earlier...we have no real need to do it. this list lets me check out the things i buy.

another positive thing they have done is an undercover expose` project lab at the University of North Carolina. i'm familier with this because my fiance works at a lab in the same building. the lab in question was doing animal research. when they were done with some of the animals they were "disposing of them in an inhumane manner". i can't remember exactly what they were doing, but i'll be glad to find out if anyone is interested. at any rate, that lab is now killing the animals by euthenaisa, which is much nicer.

[Cantacuzene]

LegendKiller, you branding them as "terrorists" is such a dismissive condescending arguement. By your logic we could label anyone we don't agree with terrorists. That is a bad path to start down, but you seem quite willing to go along with it until you or an organization you like are considered terrorists then we will see how you feel about labelling people "terrorists."

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
LegendKiller, you branding them as "terrorists" is such a dismissive condescending arguement. By your logic we could label anyone we don't agree with terrorists. That is a bad path to start down, but you seem quite willing to go along with it until you or an organization you like are considered terrorists then we will see how you feel about labelling people "terrorists."

terrorist

adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

they want people to be too scared of the retribution to do things like fashion shows involving fur. they want people to stop wearing fur, so they try to make them afraid of getting red paint thrown at them should they dare wear fur on the street.

that's terrorism.

yes, it's not as nasty as terrorists who blow people to bits. it doesn't have to be THE WORST KIND of terrorism to still be terrorism. the appellation is absolutely accurate.

[nickel]

anybody want to join in me in telling Cantacuzene once and for all to:

SHADDAP!












you are such a devil's advocate :P

[cheapie]

not to take a particular side, but i don't believe people label the ELF terrorist just because they disagree with their stance. i disagree with many positions the democratic party may have, but i would never label them "terrorists." it's more the fact that they cause damage to innocent people, attempt to use fear as an motivator, and don't engage in any useful type of dialog to bring about their goals.

also...10 gotapex points go to welfareloser for busting out "appellation." ;)

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by welfareloser


anip welfs post

As I said in my post, you can use definitions and word play to brand anyone you want a terrorist. the definition you stated is broad enough to label any somewhat extreme group who protests things terrorists. whether I agree with PETA or not I think labelling them "terrorists" is a provocative innovation and quite disturbing.

[Cantacuzene]

Nickel, just because I tend to disagree with people on here doesn't mean I shouldnt interject my opinions.

This forum is populated by and large by right leaning conservatives, and I am a left leaning liberal. Thus more often than not I'm going to disagree with the average poster here, so I'm not usually playing devils advocate just to play it, usually I'm stating my true opinions. You have the advantage of being able to be very dismissive of my opinions because here you are in the majority, but if this were a different forum or place you may not have that distinction, so I recommend that you try to keep that in mind.

[nickel]

:yawn: yawn

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback
:yawn: yawn

you know, nobody is making you read this thread. i for one am enjoying this thread and using it as an opportunity to learn something.

[nickel]

lighten up baby :P

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


As I said in my post, you can use definitions and word play to brand anyone you want a terrorist. the definition you stated is broad enough to label any somewhat extreme group who protests things terrorists. whether I agree with PETA or not I think labelling them "terrorists" is a provocative innovation and quite disturbing.

the definition is not vague. you can't label someone who hands out fliers as a terrorist without being dead wrong. i "used" the definition to define the term. peta's tactics fit the definition. lots of other groups with strong stances don't. i think jerry fallwell is an ass for making ignorant, mean comments about the islamic faith. he's not a terrorist. i am pro-choice. i think anti-abortionists who run hotlines and safehouses with the purpose of trying to get women considering abortion to consider other options are doing a good thing. i think the ones who threaten or destroy clinics, seriously harrass those entering the clinics, or kill doctors, are terrorists.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by blueindian


you know, nobody is making you read this thread. i for one am enjoying this thread and using it as an opportunity to learn something.

you know, if she's heard the same tired arguments a zillion times before, she's entitled to yawn.

[Nija]

I agree with protesting.
I don't agree with physical violence on items that aren't yours.
The protestors didn't really do anything wrong. Except interrupt a fashion show. Message received. Protest goal accomplished. She may be a "working model" but she has say in what she does and does not wear. She made a choice to wear fur, thus she has been labelled someone who supports the fur-industry.

I personally advocate the killing of animals as long as it's not for one reason alone. You kill a cow, you damn well should do more than just use it for meat. I also do, however, believe in animal population control.

[Nija]

Originally posted by welfareloser
i am pro-choice. i think anti-abortionists who run hotlines and safehouses with the purpose of trying to get women considering abortion to consider other options are doing a good thing. i think the ones who threaten or destroy clinics, seriously harrass those entering the clinics, or kill doctors, are terrorists.

I agree with the breeder :D

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by blueindian


from the article:
The dramatic confrontation was oddly fitting in a show that featured tried-and-true black lace numbers as well as everything from clear go-go boots with Day-Glo lingerie to fur caps paired with moccasin boots. And wings, lots of wings.

point 1: by having models at the fashion show wearing fur, they are expressing support for the fur industry.

point 2: click here (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=victoria%27s+secret+fur) to execute a google search. read articles from several sources and note that the fall 2000 victorias secret catalog did, in fact, contain fur items.



i would also like to point out that i am neither a member of PETA nor do i support their really extreme activities. my original post was to point out that if people are going to protest, regardless of what are protesting, they have to do it in such a way as to interfere with the people they are protesting. Otherwise no one would even notice.

i only began talking about animal testing because i was asked a direct question about it, and i was speaking primarily of cosmetic testing, not medical/research. i totally agree that breaking into labs and destroying equipment is akin to terrorism. people involved in such crap should be prosecuted.

also, PETA does do some things that i consider to be good. mainly, they maintain a list of companies that animal test and those that don't. personally, i do not want to buy shampoo, conditioner, dish soap, laundry detergent, etc that is tested on animals because as i said earlier...we have no real need to do it. this list lets me check out the things i buy.

another positive thing they have done is an undercover expose` project lab at the University of North Carolina. i'm familier with this because my fiance works at a lab in the same building. the lab in question was doing animal research. when they were done with some of the animals they were "disposing of them in an inhumane manner". i can't remember exactly what they were doing, but i'll be glad to find out if anyone is interested. at any rate, that lab is now killing the animals by euthenaisa, which is much nicer.


The protestors were targeting Gisele, who personally wears, models, and supports a fur clothing producinng company. They were not targeting VS, the fashion show, or any other organization. That is what is shown, hence the signs against her and such.

Big deal that VS had fur in thir TWO THOUSAND catalog. Its 2002 right now isn't it?
*checks calendar*....yep, its the year 2002, its almost even 2003.


I dont really agree with animal testing for cosmetics or such, but I do not care all that much either. HOWEVER, I do activly agree with animal testing for medications and such. I never really cared about PETA or ELF before, until they destroyed the UofM Alzheimers research. My grandmother, my GF's grandmother have alzheimers, and my dad is showing very earily signs of it. You do NOT get on my good side by destroying the chance of saving my dad or grandmother from having a very debilitating disease.

As far as being labled as terrorists. THEY ARE terrorists. Personally, I think them destroying the Vail ski lodge as an act of terrorism, much akin to the 9-11 attacks. Both were trying to accomplish the same thing, a message through destruction of property. While no loss of life was caused by the Vail attack, there was millions in lost building costs.

Furthermore, the act of spreading fear through throwing paint on people, harassing people who support fur through activism and general intimidation to the point that those people fear for their lives or change their general way of life IS TERRORISM!

Passive activism is one of the basic rights that any american has, and I fully stand behind those rights, if somebody was protesting non-violently and in a way that did not hurt others and police broke it up, I would be there defending their rights, but probably not their cause. However, when rights of others are being impinged upon I will NOT support people. PETA and ELF routinely impinge upon others rights, cause fear, and destroy property.


LK

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by nickelback
:yawn: yawn

Talk about proving my point. :rolleyes:

[cruelpupet]

I find it funny how you dont hear about PETA people protesting NRA rallies....



Maybe VS should have the NRA sponser the next show. Have the models walk down with automatic weapons :P

[Nija]

Originally posted by cruelpupet

Maybe VS should have the NRA sponser the next show. Have the models walk down with automatic weapons :P

:drool:

b00bies and guns...


ooooooOOOOooOOOOOOHHHHH

'cuse me, i have to go clean up....

[Cantacuzene]

Ummm the whole point of my post is that people here are too dismissive of ideas and then you go and say that its a good thing to be dismissive if you think you're right.

As for who is open minded and who is not being open minded, I really think that depends on your viewpoint. I don't see how I or anyone else has been "close minded" or how any of the people opposed to me have been particularly "open minded" As far as I'm concerned both sides have been equally opne or close minded as the other. Perhaps they just seem open minded to you because you agree with them?

[Cantacuzene]

Thats funny because I don't really care one way or the other about this issue or PETA. I could care less about either.

I only responded when LK rashly labeled PETA a terrorist organization. Then Welf posted the definition of terrorist which was broad enough for me, if I wanted, to fit many respected organizations into. I don't think it was fair or very "open minded." As far as I'm concerned, once you label an organization "terrorists" your mind is pretty closed to the issue and not well suited to accept change. ;)

[Cantacuzene]

I agree that the definition is correct, but I hesistate to apply it to groups before I'm sure. I think calling PETA terrorists is a bit rash. Also, the definition that Welf gave says.


adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon

The definition seems to imply that terrorists have political motives. I think PETA employs their protests for 'social' ends, not 'political.' They want people to stop eating meat. Thats a social change, not a polticial one.

Second point, since PETA are now "officially" terrorists, does the US government now have a right to investigate them with the extralegal power of the Patriot Act? Can they now be rounded up and taken to Camp X-ray because of their ties to "terrorism?" I know these examples are extreme, but its to show what is possible when you start throwing around loaded words like terrorism.

[hang10wannabe]

ok, PETA/protesting/opinion sharing = okay if it doesnt cost someone a lot of money for some commercial ideals. it also pisses me off when people protest in front of some small business and push away customers. that goes from protesting to obstructing peoples daily lives. if your gonna protest, leave it to protesting, not annoyance, otherwise i think we should disperse or arrest them :mad:

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I agree that the definition is correct, but I hesistate to apply it to groups before I'm sure. I think calling PETA terrorists is a bit rash. Also, the definition that Welf gave says.



The definition seems to imply that terrorists have political motives. I think PETA employs their protests for 'social' ends, not 'political.' They want people to stop eating meat. Thats a social change, not a polticial one.

Second point, since PETA are now "officially" terrorists, does the US government now have a right to investigate them with the extralegal power of the Patriot Act? Can they now be rounded up and taken to Camp X-ray because of their ties to "terrorism?" I know these examples are extreme, but its to show what is possible when you start throwing around loaded words like terrorism.

Consider this.

Where do the lines of "social" change and "political" change occur? Abortion could be considered a "social" change couldn't it? But when you place yourself on one side, and then try to affect change through protesting you have changed it to a political issue. I think anything where you have partitioned people and then forced an issue to the forefront of the media is a political issue.

Then consider their past actions, the forementioned UofM attacks, Vail, then putting their agenda in front of the world by interrupting the VS show. These are political actions taken by a group who want their agenda to be heard are they not? Social issues are almost always turned into political issues, that is the definition of freedom of speech.

Furthermore, any organization that affects change through fear and the changing of the way of life is a terrorist organization. PETA, ELF, and other such groups have tried to effect people by making them fear for their safety, property, and livelihood. Additionally, they have made people change their way of life by interrrupting normal operational life and the right to free will of a human.

I have called these two groups terrorist organizations for more than 4 years, ever since the first attack at the UofM happened. Previously I could care less what they did, but than I started paying attention.

Tell me, when do you think your rights are being interferred upon? Does it take somebody standing outside your house, or on your property. If you get married can I crash the wedding because I might believe that religion is a sham? Can I burn down your house because I think that it has ruined the beauty of my neighborhood? Can I go into your house, free your pets all in the name of animal freedom?

Can I take your children away from you because you feed them macaroni and cheese and I think that the cheese is from cow milk and milking a cow is animal cruelty. So now your kids are raised in the wild because thats how they should be?

Where does it stop? When do you finally feel that other people are making your way of life impossible?

They can think what they want, they can say what they want. They can even DO what they want, as long as it does not interrupt my life, others lives, or the rights of others.


LK

[Cantacuzene]

Allow me.


Where do the lines of "social" change and "political" change occur? Abortion could be considered a "social" change couldn't it? But when you place yourself on one side, and then try to affect change through protesting you have changed it to a political issue. I think anything where you have partitioned people and then forced an issue to the forefront of the media is a political issue.

Abortion is a political and social issue. Wearing fur is purely social. No congressman would waste his right to introduce bills on a law outlawing the wearing of fur, its nonsense. I agree with your statement as far as it does pretain to political issues, but some issues are not political and not able to be solved through legislation. To prove this, I do not think PETA is actively trying to get a bill passed in congress banning the wearing of fur or teh eating of meat. They would like those things to happen and they will try to do it through social change, not political.


Then consider their past actions, the forementioned UofM attacks, Vail

Those wear either doen by an unrelated group, as said earlier or by an extremist wing within their group. I believe all american muslims will agree with me when I say you cant blame all for teh actiosn of one.


Furthermore, any organization that affects change through fear and the changing of the way of life is a terrorist organization.

Are you honestly in fear when you go out wearing your coonskin cap or when your wife wears her mink coat? Also, as the Al-queda terrorists commit crimes against us we punish them for their participation. When a PETA-related vandal threatens someoens body or destroys private property, you bring that INDIVIDUAL to justice for his crimes.


Tell me, when do you think your rights are being interferred upon? Does it take somebody standing outside your house, or on your property.

I'm puzzled by the question. My rights are infringed upon when they are infringed upon, not a moment sooner. My freedom of speech isn't taken away until its taken away. Someone is welcome to stand outside my house all they like, so long as they stay off my private property, then they ae in violation of the law.


If you get married can I crash the wedding because I might believe that religion is a sham?

A wedding is a private affair so no you can't, that would be against the law and you would be punished for it. The VS show was a public activity. I am not allowed to crash your wedding no, but I can crash your trip to the beach, I can crash your time at a mall. I can crash you scene in any public place. Not to say that crashing the VS show wasn't a crime. They may have broken some law, but I'm not a legal expert.


Can I burn down your house because I think that it has ruined the beauty of my neighborhood? Can I go into your house, free your pets all in the name of animal freedom?

No, because both of those would involve a crime being committed. As far as braking into my house, well, you or any other theif is welcome to try, although it would be hazardous to your health.


Where does it stop?

When teh law is broken. Its really simple.


They can think what they want, they can say what they want. They can even DO what they want, as long as it does not interrupt my life, others lives, or the rights of others.

Thats what I've said the whole time. As long as they don't commit a crime they can do whatever they want. And if someone in their group DOES commit a crime, that does not make the whole group terrorists, nor does it make them all criminals. This logic applies to every other organization in America. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

[faither]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
To prove this, I do not think PETA is actively trying to get a bill passed in congress banning the wearing of fur or teh eating of meat. They would like those things to happen and they will try to do it through social change, not political.

As silly as it would sound to have legislation regarding the wearing of fur, I would almost be able to respect and understand their position better if they chose to change things through modifying the system rather than the destruction of someone else's property.


Then consider their past actions, the forementioned UofM attacks, Vail
-----------------------------------------------------

Those wear either doen by an unrelated group, as said earlier or by an extremist wing within their group. I believe all american muslims will agree with me when I say you cant blame all for teh actiosn of one.
It has been plainly proven that these groups have carried out these acts of terrorism. I do believe, though, it's stupid to lump these knuckleheads in with the terrorism we are dealing with on an international level (I'm sure you just did that to make a point).


A wedding is a private affair so no you can't, that would be against the law and you would be punished for it. The VS show was a public activity. I am not allowed to crash your wedding no, but I can crash your trip to the beach, I can crash your time at a mall. I can crash you scene in any public place. Not to say that crashing the VS show wasn't a crime. They may have broken some law, but I'm not a legal expert.
I think you're wrong. What makes a wedding a private affair? If the ceremony is held in a place of worship or a park or some other "open" space, what devine right do you have to keep other away? I would say if it was held in a private hall the rules may be different.

The VS show was not a public activity. It was a private function required tickets or media credentials for attendance.


Thats what I've said the whole time. As long as they don't commit a crime they can do whatever they want.
That's not what LK said. He said he's got no beef unless it interupts his life or the rights and lives of others. You can interfere with others and their rights without breaking a law or harming a person.

Bottom line is -- and I'm not being close-minded about this -- acts of vandalism or terrorism (in the Vail and UofM cases) are wrong.

PETA and groups like them that support the public destruction and desecration of others' property are nothing more than media-seeking publicity whores. If they didn't crave the attention they would find a more constructive way to advance their cause.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by faither

You can interfere with others and their rights without breaking a law or harming a person.

Bottom line is -- and I'm not being close-minded about this -- acts of vandalism or terrorism (in the Vail and UofM cases) are wrong.


I don't know about the first point. If you negatively interfere with someones life that is technically disturbing the peace or something like that, so it technically is a crime.

I agreed that those were crimes and were wrong. My point is rather than condemning PETA as a group that you punish the individuals involved.

[Tse How]

Ok, whether or not the definition for TERRORISM was too broad, the acts themselves ARE terrorist, albeit non-political (in most views). You can't talk about mass destruction of property with the motive of fear without saying that it is terrorism in some way,shape, or form.

And for those who defend PITA, there is NO WAY to defend those actions. NONE.

Some notes:
If another ICE AGE came by, would all PITA people die from cold because they just God-forbid would never wear animal fur?

I like meat. You can't tell me I can't eat a steak because it'll hurt some animal's feelings. Some animals are here for a reason other than to just be looked at.

[Cantacuzene]

And for those who defend PITA, there is NO WAY to defend those actions. NONE.

Thats your OPINION. You seem to state it as though it were fact.


If another ICE AGE came by, would all PITA people die from cold because they just God-forbid would never wear animal fur?

What does that prove? If me and my family is starving I will steal food if I have to to, whatever it takes to keep my family alive, does that make me a devious thief now? Also, you should note that when using hypotheticals to prove a point, you should stick to hypotheticals that are at least realistic.


I like meat. You can't tell me I can't eat a steak because it'll hurt some animal's feelings.

No one is telling you that. I eat meat too don't get me wrong. No one in PETA is saying that you can't eat meat, all they want is for you to consider your choices. Also, I suppose you are completely unaware that in the meat processing industry, the animals "feelings" are not their concern. I'm guessing it has more to do with their brutal killing, not so much as to their feelings.

[faither]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


I don't know about the first point. If you negatively interfere with someones life that is technically disturbing the peace or something like that, so it technically is a crime.

I agreed that those were crimes and were wrong. My point is rather than condemning PETA as a group that you punish the individuals involved.
If I impede your progress as you're walking down the street or drive too slowly, preventing you from moving forward, maybe I'm behaving like an a-hole but no one's going to arrest me or charge me with anything. I could even protest in front of your house and act like a ninny -- it's wacky but protected. If I go into your house or burn it down, now I've broken a law. PETA and PETA-like organizations have done these things. They -- the organizations are wrong.

PETA as a group should be condemned and just so there's no ambiguity, I condemn them. They never disavow any of this buffoonery and they and their membership support it.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
This forum is populated by and large by right leaning conservatives, and I am a left leaning liberal.
wow. i just learned something new.

i had no idea that "by and large", people here were right-leaning conservatives. thanks for the information

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by whitak24
i had no idea that "by and large", people here were right-leaning conservatives. thanks for the information

You trying to say you haven't noticed a slant to the right in most of these threads?

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


You trying to say you haven't noticed a slant to the right in most of these threads?
i have thought that on a majority of issues, there is a fairly good balance of more liberal and more conservative viewpoints.

i do think there are a few very outspoken conservatives, and they aren't necessarily balanced by very outspoken liberals in all cases. and i think there have been a few issues (such as the POW argument that happened last week) where the viewpoints expressed were almost entirely rather conservative.

however, on the whole, i think it's pretty well balanced. both sides have their advocates for most issues. and i say this as someone who, depending on the issue and how it is being discussed, tends to come down on either side of the fence. basically, whether i happen to be "liberal" or "conservative" in any given thread, there always seem to be a decent number of people who are disagreeing with me.

just my 2 cents.

[Cantacuzene]

I agree with you on that. I'm sure if every member of the forum was polled it would be fairly balanced, but as far as outspoken people goes, it is in teh conservative favor usually, as you said.

[sbp]

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/petasucks.jpg

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=355661

[Nija]

Originally posted by sbp
*snip*

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=355661

bastige...

beat me to the fark postings..

Some of those are farking hilarious :)

[whitak24]

People Eating Tasty Animals :heh:

nice find, sbp :thumbup:

when i was in college at MSU, some pranksters painted "The Rock" (a big rock that people paint with frat letters, marriage proposals, etc) to say "PITA=People Eating Tasty Animals" and "Beef tastes good in a PITA".

then they put a dead squirrel (the police ruled that it appeared to be roadkill) on top of the rock.

people through a s---fit and were labeling it a "hate crime" :rolleyes:

if there's anything that annoys me about many environmentalists and animal rights activists, it's their utter lack of anything resembling a sense of humor.

i mean, they say that christian conservatives have no sense of humor (which is often true), but they're just as bad, as they are just as "religious" as the conservatives they hate

[Nija]

Originally posted by whitak24
when i was in college at MSU, some pranksters painted "The Rock" (a big rock that people paint with frat letters, marriage proposals, etc) to say "PITA=People Eating Tasty Animals" and "Beef tastes good in a PITA".



and no one complained that college students don't know PITA and PETA are different :hmm:
PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals
not
PITA = People Ingesting Tasty Animals

and beef does taste good in pita bread... 'specially gyros :D

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Nija


and no one complained that college students don't know PITA and PETA are different :hmm:
more accurately, i think you could say "no one complained that whitak24 didn't know that PITA and PETA are different" :blush: :nono:

Originally posted by Nija

and beef does taste good in pita bread... 'specially gyros :D
i thought gyros were made out of lamb :confused:

[Nija]

Originally posted by whitak24

more accurately, i think you could say "no one complained that whitak24 didn't know that PITA and PETA are different" :blush: :nono:

that's because I thought you were more intelligent than that :P


i thought gyros were made out of lamb :confused:

they are... lamb... and beef. If I remember correctly, 70 or 80% beef and 30-20% lamb :)

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by whitak24


i thought gyros were made out of lamb :confused:

I was thinking "Goat!", but then I realized I was thinking of falafel (sp?). I'm not sure if falafel by definition is made w/ goat, but I'm pretty sure the last one I had was goat.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by Napoleon54


I was thinking "Goat!", but then I realized I was thinking of falafel (sp?). I'm not sure if falafel by definition is made w/ goat, but I'm pretty sure the last one I had was goat.

are you serious? dude...falafel is made out of chick peas.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by whitak24
People Eating Tasty Animals :heh:
if there's anything that annoys me about many environmentalists and animal rights activists, it's their utter lack of anything resembling a sense of humor.


man i'm an environmentalist and and an animal rights activist, and have have a good sense of humor. most of my friends are at least quasi-environmentalists and they all have a good sense of humor too.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by blueindian


man i'm an environmentalist and and an animal rights activist, and have have a good sense of humor. most of my friends are at least quasi-environmentalists and they all have a good sense of humor too.
ok, it was a blanket statement, but in general, it seems that environmental organizations (in a manner similar to religious organizations), have a very limited sense of humor when people make fun of their positions.

i think it stems from the moral mandate that they feel as a result of their beliefs.

[Tse How]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Thats your OPINION. You seem to state it as though it were fact.




I'd like you to defend the destruction of property and breaking of laws to instill fear in people. Since after all, its only an opinion that its a bad thing.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by Tse How


I'd like you to defend the destruction of property and breaking of laws to instill fear in people. Since after all, its only an opinion that its a bad thing.

Being that you said...
And for those who defend PITA, there is NO WAY to defend those actions. NONE.

I never said I defended them, nor did I ever say that what they did was right. I simply said that your statement was not a fact, it was an opinion. I think you need to learn the difference between what is an opinion and what a fact is. Your statement is an opinion and you seem to be under the delusion that it is an established fact that everyone should know, when thats far from teh case.

[Napoleon54]

Originally posted by blueindian


are you serious? dude...falafel is made out of chick peas.

either they had goat falafel as a special, or I am sorely mistaken. *shrug*

[Speedfreak]

Fur is great. Hell, if we kill the animals senslessly, why not use parts of it.

[Tse How]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene


Being that you said...

I never said I defended them, nor did I ever say that what they did was right. I simply said that your statement was not a fact, it was an opinion. I think you need to learn the difference between what is an opinion and what a fact is. Your statement is an opinion and you seem to be under the delusion that it is an established fact that everyone should know, when thats far from teh case.

So you're saying you don't believe in a "right" and "wrong". That everything is up for debate. If that's so, then that's up to you. I for one refuse to believe that there's *always* a gray area. Its just another way to not take responsibility. In this case, I believe its a clear cut case of right and wrong. Not an opinion, but a fact.And I know you'll say its my opinion, but really, its silly. If you ask "Do you think breaking and entering and destruction of private property is OK?" 99% of people would say NO. The other 1% would just be playing devil's advocate or have something wrong with their head. Seriously.

[Cantacuzene]

You just don't get it. To YOU this is a black and white issue, not to EVERYONE. Just because you don't see a grey area doen't mean there isnt one. You seem to allege that 99% of people are against PETA and the other 1% of "messed up in the head." I'd like to see where you got those numbers. Are those numbers facts or are they just more opinion? You are trying to say that one of your opinions is a fact and you attempt to prove it by offering more opinions. You are not being rational at all.

[cheapie]

i think debates would end better if all those involved didn't put words into each other's mouth and only debated points articulated, not those perceived to have been implied.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by Speedfreak
Fur is great. Hell, if we kill the animals senslessly, why not use parts of it.

i don't understand your post. are you saying that we senselessly kill the animals for no reason, so why not make a coat? or are you implying that we are killing the animals for some other reason, so at least use the furs?

for the most part, people protest the selling of mink and rabbit furs. and, for the most part, rabbits and minks are not eaten. they are raised for strictly for fur. (some rabbits are raised for food, however i don't think they use those for fur. i could be wrong about that.)

and, seperatly, i don't buy into the whole "fur is warm" arguement. that may be true, but i don't really think folks are buying $10,000 fur coats just to stay warm. this isn't the ice age and we aren't cavemen. for most, fur is both a fashion statement and a status symbol.

[cheapie]

if God hadn't wanted us to kill, eat, and wear animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat and covered them with fur! {says with a grin}

heh heh. wonder how many people i'll get to react with that one? :hoboy:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
if God hadn't wanted us to kill, eat, and wear animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat and covered them with fur! {says with a grin}

You may be right BUT what God did or didn't do has no bearing on our government and the laws we make. We don't base criminal laws solely on what God finds sinful.

Using God to justify a clearly secular issue is a poor arguement. There are way better pro-fur arguements you could make.

[Punker_bob2004]

yassarian your a sad sad little man...:rolleyes:

[molecularfire]

Originally posted by Tse How


So you're saying you don't believe in a "right" and "wrong". That everything is up for debate. If that's so, then that's up to you. I for one refuse to believe that there's *always* a gray area. Its just another way to not take responsibility. In this case, I believe its a clear cut case of right and wrong. Not an opinion, but a fact.And I know you'll say its my opinion, but really, its silly. If you ask "Do you think breaking and entering and destruction of private property is OK?" 99% of people would say NO. The other 1% would just be playing devil's advocate or have something wrong with their head. Seriously.

Is breaking and entering and destruction of private property wrong for instance if you're doing it against someone to help someone else? ex: Let's say that someone kidnapped a kid and I broke in and freed the kid and in the process broke some stuff (not particularly my main worry in that scenario). Am I doing wrong? Well... the PETA think that they are doing this for the greater good. :shrug:

[blueindian]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Using God to justify a clearly secular issue is a poor arguement. There are way better pro-fur arguements you could make.

especially is someone is atheist.

[cheapie]

I thought I made it abundantly clear that I was joking with my comment.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
if God hadn't wanted us to kill, eat, and wear animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat and covered them with fur! {says with a grin}
heh heh. wonder how many people i'll get to react with that one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sheesh Cantacuzene, ease up a little!

[hang10wannabe]

Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
I thought I made it abundantly clear that I was joking with my comment.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
if God hadn't wanted us to kill, eat, and wear animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat and covered them with fur! {says with a grin}
heh heh. wonder how many people i'll get to react with that one?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sheesh Cantacuzene, ease up a little!

dont worry, hes like that by nature :D

but a agree with ur statement, God put animals on this planet to "benefit" mankind. and for cantacuzene, i thought that many of our laws were based on sins, such as killing, stealing, and more killing, and their are fines and misdermeaner charges for many others. so yea, totally :)

[cheapie]

now we have people debating fur, meat, PETA, religion, God, law, etc. this thread will NEVER end! i guess that's what apex is for...:rolleyes:

[Cantacuzene]

Well, killing, stealing etc and other laws were against the law long before the notion of "sin" existed.

As for animals being put here by God "for us," thats complete bs. That would imply that extinct species were not put here "for us." If the dinosaurs were not put here "for us" then why were they put here? Does that mean that animals we don't "use" for things don't need/deserve to live, or that they are in some way superior or inferior to animals we do "use?" That statement is just not valid.

I still think we should eat meat and do all that stuff, but unlike these religious fanatics I will not imply that we have a God given mandate to do so. I don't want God in my schools, I don't want god in my courts, I don't want God in my law enforcment and I certainly don't want God in my grocery store. God is just fine where he is, in church and in the privacy of my home.

[nickel]

God is everywhere whether you want him there or not

[zenbooty]

To the senseless killing of Gods just for their meat and fur.

[skynet]

I watched the show last night, it was pretty good. (Meaning they were most all good looking and pretty close to naked, there was one ugly girl though, nice body but ugly face).

[nickel]

"all these beautiful people and nothing to see"

[cheapie]

sigh...i really didn't want to get into this but...

to say "Well, killing, stealing etc and other laws were against the law long before the notion of "sin" existed." is to ignore the fact that in most societies, religious systems predated systems of law. laws are put into place because the citizens believe the act to be wrong (i.e. a sin) and wish to legislate that belief.

are you saying that when the constitution was written, they didn't believe murder to be a sin. that they only considered it to be so after it was illegal?

to say that you only want God in your home and your church is a rather narrow view of religion. if you are a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., your religion is the foundation upon which you make your decisions in life. are you claiming that once having left your house or place or worship, you should then forget about the principles to which you claim to subscribe? a Jew is not only Jewish in a synagogue, i'm not only a Christian in church, and athiests are not only athiests in their whatevers. If we espouse to be of a certain belief set, we are bound by our principles to live out our beliefs everywhere, including government, school, and the grocery store.

lastly, saying "God is just fine where he is", shows an ignorance of peoples' belief in God. People that believe in God, believe that He is everywhere. If you disagree, that's fine. But don't tell us that our belief-dictated behavior should stop once we get in public.

and once again, I WAS KIDDING ABOUT THE GOD...MEAT...AND FUR COMMENT!!!!

[Cantacuzene]

to say "Well, killing, stealing etc and other laws were against the law long before the notion of "sin" existed." is to ignore the fact that in most societies, religious systems predated systems of law. laws are put into place because the citizens believe the act to be wrong (i.e. a sin) and wish to legislate that belief

You ignore tha fact that things can be considered wrong for more reasons than religion. If your logic was correct athiests wouldn't care about laws because they don't care about religion. People don't kill and steal because its the right thing to do, religion is of little consequence to that.


are you saying that when the constitution was written, they didn't believe murder to be a sin. that they only considered it to be so after it was illegal?

You are putting words into my mouth. Read your history too, most of teh important founding fathers were Diests. But murder has been illegal since the beginning of human civilization, which predates the old testament by about 5000 years at least, so what is legal and what isn't has little to do with Judeo-christian belief.


are you claiming that once having left your house or place or worship, you should then forget about the principles to which you claim to subscribe?

Not at all. I, and anyone else are welcome to hold themselves to whatever standards of religion they like. My problem is when OTHER people hold ME to THEIR standards.


lastly, saying "God is just fine where he is", shows an ignorance of peoples' belief in God. People that believe in God, believe that He is everywhere. If you disagree, that's fine. But don't tell us that our belief-dictated behavior should stop once we get in public.

My point is that if you are faithful God is in your heart and that we don't need it forced on us at school, government etc.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

My point is that if you are faithful God is in your heart and that we don't need it forced on us at school, government etc.

where is this being forced upon anyone? there is not a school nor a place in government that is allowed to show any faith in God.
so you have no worries there.

[cheapie]

that's a decent response and you have a couple of good points. i would agree that people don't only have morals because of their religious background.

however, having said that, i think you fail to acknowledge the influence religion has on our lives. even if you haven't ever gone to church, those people that have influenced your concept of right and wrong prob. have.

"But murder has been illegal since the beginning of human civilization, which predates the old testament by about 5000 years at least, so what is legal and what isn't has little to do with Judeo-christian belief."

i would caution you not to assume that murder has been "illegal" since the beginning of human civ. look at the ancient traditions of the inca and aztec indians. murder was not only legal, but was encouraged. you know why? because it was part of their religious system.

i would debate the rest but i'm too tired. =)

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback


where is this being forced upon anyone? there is not a school nor a place in government that is allowed to show any faith in God.
so you have no worries there.

umm...not quite.

John Ashcroft holds daily, mandetory, christian prayer meetings for his staff.

At my highschool, football players were made to participate in prayer.

In our courts, witnesses must swear upon the bible. (does that mean that since i don't take the bible as fact i can lie? :))

all those actions demonstrate a faith in god.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by blueindian

John Ashcroft holds daily, mandetory, christian prayer meetings for his staff.

ummmmmm.....linky? :hmm:

[Cantacuzene]

I dunno about the mandatory prayer, but he is a bit off the far side.

All the classical style greek statues in the building he works in he had robes put on them because they were nudes. That is a bit puritanical. I mean c'mon, putting clothes on nude ancient greek sculpture. Thats too conservative for me to bear.

[cheapie]

he had the statue in back of where he started having press conferences changed so that he wasn't addressing the entire free world with a sculpture of a woman in back of him with her tits hanging out. are you sure he did that with all of the statues? i don't think that this is the case.

[Punker_bob2004]

lol thats still kinda sad

[InfiniteNothing]

Originally posted by blueindian


umm...not quite.

John Ashcroft holds daily, mandetory, christian prayer meetings for his staff.

At my highschool, football players were made to participate in prayer.

In our courts, witnesses must swear upon the bible. (does that mean that since i don't take the bible as fact i can lie? :))

all those actions demonstrate a faith in god.

And don't forget about the pledge of allegiance. Athiests are forced to acknowledge that there is a God. Imagine if you were forced to acknowledge that there was no God or something like that.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I dunno about the mandatory prayer, but he is a bit off the far side.

All the classical style greek statues in the building he works in he had robes put on them because they were nudes. That is a bit puritanical. I mean c'mon, putting clothes on nude ancient greek sculpture. Thats too conservative for me to bear.
i never said johnny-a wasn't a right wing freak ;)

however, there's a difference between being somewhere to the right of ghengus kahn and forcing your staff into prayer meetings.

just for the record, ashcroft scares the hell out of me. his alias could be big brother :eek:

[whitak24]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing


And don't forget about the pledge of allegiance. Athiests are forced to acknowledge that there is a God. Imagine if you were forced to acknowledge that there was no God or something like that.
read everything you ever wanted to know (and probably a few things you didn't) about the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.

check out this thread (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46136) :D

[blueindian]

Originally posted by whitak24

ummmmmm.....linky? :hmm:

you can google for john ashcroft daily prayer and find all sorts of articles about it. although they are not mandatory; perhaps i stand corrected. though i do think i remember a bit on NPR...something to the effect of the meetings not being explicitly required, but rather implicitly required.

actually, all the articles I could find said the prayer meetings are optional.

[sbp]

Originally posted by blueindian
John Ashcroft holds daily, mandetory, christian prayer meetings for his staff.No amigo, he does not.


Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
he had the statue in back of where he started having press conferences changed so that he wasn't addressing the entire free world with a sculpture of a woman in back of him with her tits hanging out. are you sure he did that with all of the statues? i don't think that this is the case. That was done because idiotic news photographers were doing stupid things like crawling on the floor during news conferences trying to get a picture of him with the statue. :2far:

[blueindian]

Originally posted by sbp
No amigo, he does not.

per above post, i stand corrected on the word mandetory. but he certainly
holds daily, christian prayer meetings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A23278-2001May13&notFound=true)

which holds agaist the assertion that:

Originally posted by nickelback
there is not a school nor a place in government that is allowed to show any faith in God

[sbp]

Well thats what she said.

It is absolutely fine for him or anyone else to be religious on their time.

If a person is offended *gasp* by people actually exercising religious freedom, then that person has got a big problem-one he/she needs to deal with.

[blueindian]

no, that's not what she said. she said


there is not a school nor a place in government that is allowed to show any faith in God

john ashcroft holds meetings in the offices of the doj. that is, in fact, a place in government that is allwowed to show faith in god. that would be the point i was contradicting.

[sbp]

She said the quote.

And this is what I say again: It is absolutely fine for him or anyone else to be religious on their time.

If a person is offended *gasp* by people actually exercising religious freedom, then that person has got a big problem-one he/she needs to deal with.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by sbp
She said the quote.

And this is what I say again: It is absolutely fine for him or anyone else to be religious on their time.

If a person is offended *gasp* by people actually exercising religious freedom, then that person has got a big problem-one he/she needs to deal with.

oh i see what you meant. i misunderstood your post. sometimes i wish there were voice inflections in forums :)

[whitak24]

Originally posted by sbp
And this is what I say again: It is absolutely fine for him or anyone else to be religious on their time.
true 'dat.

i'm sick of hearing about the whole ashcroft prayer meetings. imo, there is PLENTY of stuff he has done that he should be called to task for. making a big deal out of him having prayer with some of his staff during lunch hour borders on intolerance.

the federal government is like any other workplace. your lunch hour is (pardon the pun) sacred. if you want to go sit in your car and wank, go for it. if you want to sit in your office with some of your coworkers and study the bible, then that's fine too.

[Cantacuzene]

Agreed, Ashcroft has a lot more to be criticized about than voluntary prayer meetings. That man could use a quick read through of the constitution. I'm guessing maybe he hasnt read it in a while, he seems a bit rusty.

[cheapie]

right...makes you wish for the good 'ol days of janey reno.../me laughes maniacally and runs away screaming