learned religious leader to do just that - lead. People can choose to follow the
ban or not.
As for it impinging on others, I totally disagree. This is a matter that only
impinges on the Jewish community and only on the orthodox segment. It's not
telling non-Jews what to do. It's not forcing anyone to go along. It's saying
that there's a problem and a solution.
The point of my article is that the solution is extreme and should be
re-examined and reworked.
> At the same time, is it right for a religious representative (be he/she the
> CFO, chief thug, imam, priest, minister, rabbi, etc) to dictate what others
> who may not follow your religious beliefs should or should not see?
>
> The problem with having religiously based bans is that it always impinges on
> others who may not share your religious views. Very shortly we end up with
> situations like in Salt Lake City (where the Mormons were able to enforce a
> ban on speaking against their church on certain parts of the city's main
> street), Afghanistan under the Taliban or Iran.
>
> larry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 1:53 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Newspaper article
> >
> >
> > Just because it's everywhere doesn't mean it's right or that
> > people of a religious nature should be forced to view it.
> > We've had this discussion before about when and how to expose
> > children to material of this sort and it always runs down to
> > personal choice. I don't want my kids seeing a naked chick on
> > a billboard while others feel it's ok.
> >
> >
> > > And life. I mean really... That crap (porn, etc) is everywhere, not
> > > just the internet.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
