Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Banning SI Swimsuit issues: Is government-sanctioned art next?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 10:51 PM
Original message
Banning SI Swimsuit issues: Is government-sanctioned art next?
Edited on Fri Mar-04-05 10:53 PM by tuvor
The president of Michigan's American Decency Association is encouraging Christians not to stand by while disguised pornography gets a foothold through local checkout stands. (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/32005h.asp)

I dunno, maybe even these are too raunchy for those so righteous.

http://www.worth1000.com/cache/gallery/contestcache.asp?contest_id=556

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 10:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. The way the rightwingnut "christians" are going, OBL will want to apply
for US citizenship soon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zenlitened Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Hell, if the repukes get the "Arnold Amendment" passed,...
Edited on Fri Mar-04-05 11:01 PM by Zenlitened
... OBL can run for president. The fundies will finally have a true blood-brother to support. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. rotfl!!!
Oh the IRONY that would be! LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 10:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. As long as it's voluntary, what's the big deal?
My guess is that the "ban" will consist of those good churchgoing men buying the issue from a news stand outside their neighborhood and keeping it in the garage instead of on the coffee table.

In other words, this one aint gonna get far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnorman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Here are a few paragraphs from the first website:
.Religious groups participating in federal job-training programs could hire employees based on their religious beliefs under a jobs bill that passed the House on Wednesday (March 2). The vote to extend and rewrite the 1998 Workforce Investment Act came a day after President Bush chided Congress for failing to pass his faith-based initiatives. Under current law, religious organizations that participate in federal job-training programs cannot discriminate in hiring or firing for taxpayer-funded jobs. The House bill would remove that prohibition, meaning that a faith-based group could limit such employment to fellow believers. Supporters of the clause stress that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring practices. The bill's prospects in the Senate are uncertain.

...Congressman Walter Jones has reintroduced legislation that would let clergy endorse candidates from the pulpit without jeopardizing their churches' tax-exempt status. It is his fourth attempt to win passage of the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act. At a Capitol Hill news conference with clergy and fellow Republicans from the House and Senate, Jones said, "This will happen in God's time and I believe the time has come." Several ministers said they should not have to worry that the IRS is reviewing their sermons. Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, who heads the Interfaith Alliance, responded that preachers already can say anything they want as long as they are willing to forfeit their tax-exempt status. But supporters of Jones' bill -- HR 235 -- say that effectively muzzles ministers who they say should be able to offer guidance to their flocks without fear of government reprisal.
>
>
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/3/32005h.asp

pnorman
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AirAmFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-04-05 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. 'Disguised pornography'? Like a 'Wet Burka' contest, you mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC