![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 5 to 29 of 51. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 11:10:00
In reply to Re: proselytizing, posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 10:30:39
Lini:
If you'd read the posts leading to Lou's block last time, you'll find that I was one of his main supporters. And I have remained on Lou's side when it comes to his right to post. The Faith board was set up primarily because of this problem.
At this point, I am not arguing about the way Lou posts. I am arguing about what seems to be a double standard on what is supportive or not, and what is proselytizing/sloganeering or not.
As I said, I am usually on Lou's side when it comes to his right to post. But it has sometimes, of late, been over that line--especially when the person who asked for help on the thread asked for a specific kind of help and was given exactly what she didn't want.
If I posted that I was robbed and needed something to help me out of the fear pit and asked that posters please refrain from spiritual advice, as I found it hadn't worked for me in the past, would it be considered supportive for someone to come in and do just that? Sure, the poster has a right to express his opinion. But some opinions should be considered, based on that prior request, unsupportive.
beardy
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 13:16:16
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 11:10:00
Actually, I wasn't talking at all about Lou's right to express his opinion or not, I was more talking about the fact that it is his *style* of expressing himself that seems to make things difficult for other people. The right to an opinion, and your expression of an opinion are two different things . . . given that Lou seems to have a particular style, it probably makes sense for those that don't enjoy it, to not converse with him. SD asked for a long-story-short and Lou basically said that in order to answer her question, he had to give a long story. That's his style when asked questions, I am not sure there is much we can do about that (as SD learned!).
If I asked you to answer a question for me about depression, but said, put your answer in haiku form, well . . . you could, or you could just answer the question to the best of your ability. Either way, I wouldn't think you were being unsupportive simply because you didn't write in the style that I asked for. I would probably just ignore all non-haiku responses! ;)
In the same vein, I wouldn't think it was unsupportive for me to ask for you to respond in haiku form, it's a request, not a mandate. (this is why I disagree with Dr. Bob's block of SD).
In regards to proselytizing, I don't think it is something that a person can do if they are the one that was asked the question. And, just because his posts are long, multifaceted, hard to follow, predictable or whatever, doesn't mean that he is proselytizing. (Though that is what proselytizing has always sounded like to me!)
If you ask a question, especially about something as sensitive as religion, well, you might not like the answer and I don't think that is anyone's fault. SD wanted to bow out after she learned about Lou's style. Then she wanted to try asking again. I don't see anything wrong with either of it.
That is basically why I don't like the faith board, I don't see it as a particulary "supportive" place. It's interesting, you can learn alot about religion, what people believe, etc. but I don't see how you get anything more supportive than a discussion on PSB, and if you wanted to learn about religion, I am not sure why you would come to a mental health online support group. But I digress . . .
Um, I think my point is that I don't think either parties were "unsupportive" necessarily, it was just a conversation between two people with different styles of conversing.
That's my take on it anyway. . . .
Posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 14:27:07
In reply to Re: proselytizing » beardedlady, posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 13:16:16
> Actually, I wasn't talking at all about Lou's right to express his opinion or not, I was more talking about the fact that it is his *style* of expressing himself that seems to make things difficult for other people. The right to an opinion, and your expression of an opinion are two different things . . . given that Lou seems to have a particular style, it probably makes sense for those that don't enjoy it, to not converse with him. SD asked for a long-story-short and Lou basically said that in order to answer her question, he had to give a long story. That's his style when asked questions, I am not sure there is much we can do about that (as SD learned!).
I have said the same things you have said.
> If I asked you to answer a question for me about depression, but said, put your answer in haiku form, well . . . you could, or you could just answer the question to the best of your ability. Either way, I wouldn't think you were being unsupportive simply because you didn't write in the style that I asked for. I would probably just ignore all non-haiku responses! ;)There's probably a difference between asking for all responses to be haikus and asking for people NOT to respond in a certain way. The first might get one or two responses, as it would be answered only by those who could write a haiku (or would want to try). The person who asks for help of a non-relgious nature would be able to get a bunch of non-religious suggestions.
> In the same vein, I wouldn't think it was unsupportive for me to ask for you to respond in haiku form, it's a request, not a mandate. (this is why I disagree with Dr. Bob's block of SD).Why would anyone even consider the request unsupportive? I can't quite figure out what the argument is, since you and I seem to be in agreement. Sandra Dee never should have been blocked.
> In regards to proselytizing, I don't think it is something that a person can do if they are the one that was asked the question.
My point is that some questions are not being asked to one person specifically; they're posed to EVERYONE on the board. Everyone has a right to answer them. But it becomes proselytizing when the same person says the same thing each time--to every poster on every thread.
My argument was with Dr. Bob, not with you. I wanted to know the difference between what the nice guy on the med board did when he put a Salvation Army quote at the bottom of each post and what Lou does.
>And, just because his posts are long, multifaceted, hard to follow, predictable or whatever, doesn't mean that he is proselytizing. (Though that is what proselytizing has always sounded like to me!)
No one said the length of the posts was the problem.
> If you ask a question, especially about something as sensitive as religion, well, you might not like the answer and I don't think that is anyone's fault. SD wanted to bow out after she learned about Lou's style. Then she wanted to try asking again. I don't see anything wrong with either of it.
Me either. All I'm saying is that, at some point, it becomes proselytizing.
> Um, I think my point is that I don't think either parties were "unsupportive" necessarily, it was just a conversation between two people with different styles of conversing.
Okay. But I think it's more than that.
beardy
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 15:16:48
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 14:27:07
Sorry I didn't make it clear, but it wasn't a message defending an argument, or disagreeing with your argument. It was just some thoughts based on your post.
K?
-L
Posted by tabitha on July 8, 2002, at 15:29:10
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 14:27:07
Hi Beardy,
If I can inject one response here...> But it becomes proselytizing when the same person says the same thing each time--to every poster on every thread.
I don't see this as proselytizing, I see it as obsession. My take is that Lou is just plain obsessed with his experience, and with telling the story over and over. And considering that religious obsession can be a symptom of the types of conditions many of us are struggling with here, I try to feel more compassion than irritation toward him. I do understand people's frustration though.
-tabitha
Posted by shar on July 8, 2002, at 16:04:33
In reply to Lou's response to Beardedlady's post -part2, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 10:05:48
I think when Lou is saying "I did this" and "I think that" he is not really prosyletizing. However, when the 'you' statements begin...that's different, ie, 'will you join me' and 'you can find peace this way or that way.'
I think all gates posts belong on the faith board, and anything else with religious content should go there, too. I rarely go there, and don't read Lou's posts anyway after a frustrating time of trying to nudge the gates story out of him.
If I twist off someday and start answering everyone's posts with responses about coffee enemas, I figure I'd just have a little while before being completely ignored, because people would know what I was going to say anyway, and the repetition would get old, I think. But, as long as I am just saying, I do coffee enemas for that problem or situation, it's not really proseyletizing, imo. But, when I start suggesting others do it too, and provide step-by-step directions on how to do it, in every post I write, that's prosyletizing to me. And, it wouldn't be very sensitive to others who had heard it 30 times already and need real help.
Just MO.
Shar
Posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
In reply to Re: proselytizing, posted by tabitha on July 8, 2002, at 15:29:10
> I don't see this as proselytizing, I see it as obsession. My take is that Lou is just plain obsessed with his experience, and with telling the story over and over. And considering that religious obsession can be a symptom of the types of conditions many of us are struggling with here, I try to feel more compassion than irritation toward him.
Tabitha:
First, I don't have any problem with Lou posting his experiences. I feel like I need to say that each time, because this is really not about Lou. It's about double standards and intentions and rules.
Dr. Bob said that proselytizing isn't allowed. Is this a fair rule? Is it even an enforceable rule?
Do you believe it's only prosyletizing when it's someone who doesn't have a mental illness? Isn't all prosyletizing an obsession? Some may argue that it's a form of mental illness or a manifestation of it, in which case it can't be fair to make a "no prosyletizing" rule.
And since this is a mental health board, we'll also have to excuse those who lash out at others, as they are suffering from mood disorders and often can't control their tempers.
Anything anyone does on these boards can be attributed to whatever mental illness he may suffer from. So how do we determine that one person is just writing in his style and another is sloganeering or preaching or being unsupportive?
beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 16:13:45
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beardedlady,
You talked about me being a man that would like to see evryone ditch his meds and pass through the Gates, following his path to self- rightiousness.
Beardedlady, I have made the disclosure that I am only am presenting my experiance to those that are suffering. I am only posting to those that are interested in overcomming their addiction and/or depression. It is what I have experianced that enabled me to overcome.
I have also posted that one's rightiousness would have to exceed the rightiousness of the chief Rabbis that are extremly rightious. But I have also posted that it would be impossible for any person to do so.
Now to clear that up, I need to post the last 2 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life and then God's plan of salvation will be revealed. Untill now, ther clear illumination has not been shown. I intend to bring all this into focus with the posting of Gates 6 and 7
Lou
Lou
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 16:50:56
In reply to Lou's answer to Beardedlady's post-part3, posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 16:13:45
Just make sure you post to the right board re: the Gates and stuff. (Faith)Thanks!
-L
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 16:55:11
In reply to Re: Lou's responses...I vs. you statements, posted by shar on July 8, 2002, at 16:04:33
Now that is the funniest thing I've read today!Coffee enemas? LOL!
-L
Posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 17:10:20
In reply to Where do we draw the line? » tabitha, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
>Anything anyone does on these boards can be attributed to whatever mental illness he may suffer from. So how do we determine that one person is just writing in his style and another is sloganeering or preaching or being unsupportive?
I don't know about sloganeering (never heard the term before), but you're right, these are all subjective terms, which is why we have a moderator to make those kind of calls. So actually, we don't determine it, Dr. Bob does.I think that sometimes someone could interpret the things that I write as "preachy" and I definitely have a "style" that is all my own. And if I wanted to respond with poetry or song lyrics to every post, I would probably annoy some analytical types. But, would I be being unsupportive? I don't think so. I really do think that that is the bottom line -- are you trying to be supportive, or is it obvious that you don't care how the other person feels or if you hurt their feelings?
Some people on this site like to draw things with the various symbols on the key board. No one thinks that this is unsupportive, cause I think that everyone understands CTRLALTDEL's (I think that is the right handle) intent to be positive and part of his/her style of communicating. I guess I think that that is where you draw the line, based on someone's intention (not ability) to communicate positively. And like I have said above, I think people need more opportunities to clarify their intent before they get the boot.
-L
Posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 18:00:23
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » beardedlady, posted by Lini on July 8, 2002, at 17:10:20
Lini:
> I don't know about sloganeering (never heard the term before), but you're right, these are all subjective terms, which is why we have a moderator to make those kind of calls. So actually, we don't determine it, Dr. Bob does.Dr. Bob has said that he wants to make this board safe and supportive. He does a pretty good job. But he gave a few PBCs to a poster who quoted Salvation Army literature, saying that this was sort of like advertising, or sloganeering. I never understood why it wasn't allowed. Many people quoted song lyrics. I wrote posts in support of Ani Difranco. Phil made the analogy that if someone put, "Eat at Joe's" on the bottom of every post, it would be like selling something. Well how can one sell the Salvation Army? It's not something you can buy. And he wasn't saying "I did this" or "you should do this"; he was quoting.
I see many similarities between what that poster did and what some others do. When I ask where the line is drawn, I'm asking Dr. Bob how he makes that distinction. Why is it proselytising in one place and not another?
I think it's okay to ask for clarification, as well as to disagree with the moderator in a civil way. Moderators make mistakes. And yes, it's his ball, and if he doesn't want us to play with it, he can go home. And if we don't like the game he wants to play with it, we can go home. But I would hope Dr. Bob wouldn't act that way and that others wouldn't offer that as a valid reason why he could. But I am seeing more and more posters go home because they don't like this game anymore.
> I think that sometimes someone could interpret the things that I write as "preachy" and I definitely have a "style" that is all my own. And if I wanted to respond with poetry or song lyrics to every post, I would probably annoy some analytical types. But, would I be being unsupportive? I don't think so. I really do think that that is the bottom line -- are you trying to be supportive, or is it obvious that you don't care how the other person feels or if you hurt their feelings?
Dr. Bob told me long ago (on this very board) that it was difficult to determine someone's intention. I had asked him whether he really thought someone intended to hurt another (who actually wasn't hurt at all) and that intention should have been taken into consideration. He said that would be too difficult. When I told him he was already determining negative intention with every PBC or block he issues, he sort of agreed that he had to rely on interpreting intention to issue them.
> Some people on this site like to draw things with the various symbols on the key board. No one thinks that this is unsupportive, cause I think that everyone understands CTRLALTDEL's (I think that is the right handle) intent to be positive and part of his/her style of communicating.
I don't think that analogy is a good one. Before we had the Faith board, dozens of people complained about the same thing, and it was not the little animals drawn by Dr. Eamer. Nor has anyone complained about a preachy style or song lyrics or poetry or any of the other styles we have. Profanity and intolerance and downright rudeness are the usual causes for complaint. Religious answers to non-religious questions are another. And now that the faith board has been developed, the same answer to every different poster's thread is another.
>I guess I think that that is where you draw the line, based on someone's intention (not ability) to communicate positively. And like I have said above, I think people need more opportunities to clarify their intent before they get the boot.
I believe Zo attempts to communicate positively, yet her posts are scrutinized. And I have seen other posters say some absolutely horrible things to people and get a fourth and fifth PBC.
I have also seen someone get a week for saying evil things about a dead person and another get a four-week block for calling someone disruptive. Heck, I told a poster who had made a rude comment to Phil (something like, "Shut the hell up and go back to bed") that he'd made a rude comment, and I was given a PBC. I didn't say something someone could take as accusatory! I said a fact! "Shut the hell up" is a rude thing to say, especially to someone who was merely telling him that it was against the rules to post how to get meds without a prescription!
I agree with your above posts regarding parole. I have asked for similar things--especially with regard to intent. I hope you have better luck.
I'm totally sick about this, and I'm leaving the board too. I wanted to say goodbye in a better way, but I think most people who want to know how to get in touch with me. I may write a little farewell letter if I'm not blocked tomorrow.
But I find it a sad state of affairs that a person can get blocked for quoting me because my intention (from a post with no message, yet) was deemed to be better than that of someone who was clearly distressed about the way her questions were being answered.
beardy
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 21:21:38
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beardedlady,
Could you answer the following questions? If I have answers to them, then I will be better able to understand what your point is relavant to my use of the City of Peace and the Rider on the White Horse. It appears that you want me to stop using the phrase, City of Peace, in all of my posts and I would like to know what you mean by that for you have posted, "Please stop answering all posts with City of Peace"
#1.. Does the phrase, City of Peace, have a quota that I should stop at in the number of times that I use it? If so, then what is the quota?
#2..If I go over the quota, if there is one, then what phrase would you suggest that I substitute it for?
#3..I can not separate my experiance from the City of Peace. So if I have to use a different phase after the quota, if there is one, then for what reason, if there is one, would I have to stop using it at some arbitrary number ?
Your answers will be appreciated by me, for I would want to know what you suggest in order for me to modify my style, if necessary.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 21:46:16
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beardedlady,
Could you answer the following for me in order foe me to know what board my posts would belong on if I used the phrase, "City of Peace"? I want to tell of my experiance and I was led to believe that the faith board was created for all of us to use to post about faith in our lives.
#1.. If I have to stop using the phrase, City of Peace, on the faith board, then what board ,could I , use it on?
#2.. If I can not use the phrase on any board, then why does the faith board exist?
#3..There is a thread now on the faith board titled ,"Are ther any Wikkans or pagens ...?
Are the answers to that thread "prosalytising, according to you?
#4..If they are not, then why are mine that use the phrase, "City of Peace"?
I feel that I will be better able to understand your objection to me using the phrase, "City of Peace" if you answer those questions for me and we will be better able to, perhaps, modify my posts in a way that I can still tell of my experiance and not use the phrase, "City of Peace."
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 8, 2002, at 22:01:26
In reply to Re: proselytizing » Dr. Bob, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 9:21:53
Beadedlady,
Could you answer the following question for me for I would like to clarify if you consider the following post pros. or not pros.. If I know that, then I feel that I could communicate better with you.
#1 ..There is a post on the faith board now where a poster says that she saw Jesus in the sky in New Mexico. The title of the thread is "What do you think about God." That post is advocating for those to beleive in God, because she is a witness to the experiance. Is her telling of her experiance acceptable? If it is, why would mine not be? I want to tell my experiance on the faith board as this poster has done, so it would be of great benifit to me for you to clarify the differences, if any , of her post and mine that include my experiance.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 23:30:45
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 18:00:23
> I see many similarities between what that poster did and what some others do. When I ask where the line is drawn, I'm asking Dr. Bob how he makes that distinction. Why is it proselytising in one place and not another?
Could I ask you to pick out an example of each? Then I'll be able to take a look at the specifics and do my best to explain.
> Dr. Bob told me long ago (on this very board) that it was difficult to determine someone's intention. I had asked him whether he really thought someone intended to hurt another (who actually wasn't hurt at all) and that intention should have been taken into consideration. He said that would be too difficult. When I told him he was already determining negative intention with every PBC or block he issues, he sort of agreed that he had to rely on interpreting intention to issue them.
Did I really say that? Regarding every PBC? If you could find that post, I'd like to see it. IMO, trying to interpret intention is such a can of worms...
Bob
Posted by Raven on July 8, 2002, at 23:37:16
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Lini, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 18:00:23
I have been a lurker here for the past 8 months. I haven’t posted anything yet because I’m always hesitant to reveal my situation for fear of making others uncomfortable. I started posting on another board and had very few replies to my posts as others probably thought, well, ‘What the heck can I say to her?’ after telling that I’m terminally ill and that my husband of 31 years just divorced me. I usually am a little depressed which is why I visit PB.
There, I did it! That was tough!
Now the reason that I’m posting now is to say that I’m really, really disappointed that so many of the personalities here that I enjoy reading are biting the dust, i.e. KK,IsoM, Zo, now Beardy, and I’m sure others I may have forgotten to mention. I will, and do miss their personalities, their humor, their sincere kindness and the often wise advice they offer others. I drew vicariously off of it.
Can lurkers feel unsupported? You betcha!
Raven
Posted by shar on July 8, 2002, at 23:55:43
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » beardedlady, posted by Raven on July 8, 2002, at 23:37:16
>I’m really, really disappointed that so many of the personalities here that I enjoy reading are biting the dust, i.e. KK,IsoM, Zo, now Beardy, and I’m sure others I may have forgotten to mention.
...I can join you in feeling disappointed. It is hard to build relationships (or think you are) and then have people split, for whatever reason. (Can you tell I have abandonment issues?)
...I have a hard time reconciling the exodus based on administrative disagreements which would be moot on most other boards because no poster's input is typically sought or attended to.
...However, if you continue to lurk, Raven, you will find new people who come to participate and share themselves and lend support. It won't be another IsoM or KK...or whomever, but we deal with the aftermath of their choices whether we do it sadly or matter-of-factly or angrily or whatever. It is the nature of the boards that this happens.
I hope you will be able to receive support from those who remain. And, there are many of us here who don't see a much brighter day on the horizon, so, during your dark times you are in good company.
Shar
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:17:29
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » Raven, posted by shar on July 8, 2002, at 23:55:43
> if you continue to lurk, Raven, you will find new people who come to participate and share themselves and lend support.
>
> I hope you will be able to receive support from those who remain.Also, people sometimes leave and then come back, so there's always that hope, too...
Bob
Posted by IsoM on July 9, 2002, at 0:52:58
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line? » beardedlady, posted by Raven on July 8, 2002, at 23:37:16
Raven, what kind words you've said. I think this has all come to a head & that's why so many of us are leaving.
Am I emtionally upset & hurt over all this mix-up? No. But I feel that wrongs are being committed here & my sense of principles & my honour bothers me to continue posting here & thereby support an administrative style I feel is wrong. I DO NOT plan to return after this post to you, but I checked back this time as I heard dear Beardy was leaving too. I'd feel like a hypocrit to continue posting here at a forum I feel is unjustly managed. It's not my board & we have no real influence here, so I choose not to play this game any more.
Would you like to keep in touch? Would you like whatever support we may be able to offer without 'telling' you what you *should* do? Then I'd feel honoured if you'd like to email me at
isomorphix at shaw dot caI wrote it like this to not let my address show in searches. Any one else who'd like to stay in touch, feel free to email me. There's a number of us who hope to do something for others of like ilk as us.
Posted by tabitha on July 9, 2002, at 2:53:09
In reply to Where do we draw the line? » tabitha, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
> Do you believe it's only prosyletizing when it's someone who doesn't have a mental illness? Isn't all prosyletizing an obsession? Some may argue that it's a form of mental illness or a manifestation of it, in which case it can't be fair to make a "no prosyletizing" rule.
>
> And since this is a mental health board, we'll also have to excuse those who lash out at others, as they are suffering from mood disorders and often can't control their tempers.Beardy,
No I would not excuse behavior that breaks the rules even if it is a symptom of an illness. I'd say throw em out, or lock em up, or whatever it takes to make the world safe for the rest of us. Looking at what might be contributing to the behavior just makes it easier for me to manage my emotional reaction to it (compassion feels better than anger to me).
I get that your disagreement is more with the admin policy & consistency of enforcement, rather than the city of peace stuff itself. Sorry if I misunderstood.
I'll miss you if you leave, you're certainly one whose posts I look forward to seeing. I'm sad too that so many regulars have left or been blocked over this stuff.
-tabitha
Posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 6:08:24
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2002, at 0:17:29
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4557.html
One of them.
Posted by beardedlady on July 9, 2002, at 6:10:34
In reply to Re: Where do we draw the line?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 8, 2002, at 23:30:45
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020420/msgs/4512.html
My post that led up to yours.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:04:39
In reply to Where do we draw the line? » tabitha, posted by beardedlady on July 8, 2002, at 16:06:33
Friends,
I have a suggestion that could possibly be helpful in this discussion. This concerns where the line should be drawn.
I beleive that the line is where someone is promroting or advancing a particular religion. Statements like ,I am Catholic and you should join Roman Catholisism would be an obvious crosssing of the line.
Statemants like, "the Jahovah's Witnesses should not be allowed to speak here" would also be a statement that would go over the line for the opposite reason. Then, of course,in my opinion, so would "please stop talking about the Rider on the White Horse"
Now , if a person said, "I saw Jesus in the sky in New Mexico, that person is not promoting a particular religion, but just telling her experiance. Someone could also say that they entered Nirvana and saw..... But if that person said that they saw Jesus and He said to join the Morman denomination, then that would be promoting a particular religion and go over the line.
I base this on the rullings about this by the U.S Supreme Court and the Canadian and British rullings. Those countries have freedom of religion . But there is more and I will go on.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:25:04
In reply to Lou's Line that could be drawn » beardedlady, posted by Lou Pilder on July 9, 2002, at 7:04:39
Friends,
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech and the principle of equal rights are intertwined. The U.S. Constitution intertwines them in the First Amendment and 14th amandments to the Constitution.
When Thomas Jefferson saw that the Constitution could have the potential to allow a tyrannical majority to take away peoples rights, he ammended the Constitution to prevent that. For he said that the majority rules, but they can not take away the rights of the minority. that is what the "Bill of Rights" is about.
Jefferson's torch for equal rights has been carried the last 226 years by those that believe in the light of freedom. Like Abraham Lincoln, M.L.King, Muhammad Ali, Madylin O'Hara, Frederick Douglas, Abbe Hoffman, and many others.
I have experianced and felt the pain of the lash of descrimination. I will also carry the torch of freedom . Some may think that it is an obsession to do so. And it is! It was an obsession with the Mahatma Gahndi. It was an obsession with M.L.King. It was an obsession with Patric Henry. He said,"GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH".
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.