Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3830)	3/21/2002 2:48:14 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Yes, you may poke fun at Falwell, although some of it may cross a line. Definitely, he is open to responsible criticism. There is no problem with arguing that the Pope is not infallible, per se, nor in accusing the American Catholic Church of corruption in handling molestation. In and of themselves, they are reasonable points of view, and do not necessarily involve slander or mere knee jerk contempt. If you want to argue that the Cathedral of Notre Dame is ugly, that is fair, if dopey.<g> I have seen funny sketches involving religion too. It seems to me that it is a question of malice. Poking fun at church ladies' hats does not come close to sacrilege, and is the usual send up of a foible that is central to humor. Irreverence is not necessarily mean, or a big slam at a central tenet or icon of a religion. Again, it is a question of judgement. You cannot separate respect for belief with respect for the content of belief. If you are rolling your eyes at the burning bush, you are rolling your eyes at the person who believes in the burning bush. Contempt is contempt. I am having a hard time understanding your confusion.