|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Jim Peterson
email: jamestp@tampabay.rr.com
Thursday, 18-Mar-1999 21:49 PST
In our American system virtually all opinions, in just about any forum, should not be censored. On the contrary, it should be encouraged. Only by opening up the resevoirs of hate fully and revealing them to the bright light of public criticism, will our polity become at once more tolerant and humane. Our criminal justice system ought to be reserved for crimes of action, not thought. I take a back seat to no one in my condemnation of bigotry, intolerance, and inflamatory rhetoric, but if we are ever to move past such primitive expressions, we must have public discussion. Those of us who champion freedom of expression must therefore work all the harder to fight for the dignity of humanity.
name: Vicki Coffman
email: vncoffman@hotmail.com
Thursday, 18-Mar-1999 22:01 PST
Your poll really made me think.
I think that it would be best if the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence chose a time other than Easter for their celebration, and I rather wish they had.
On the other hand, religion is a *choice* (albiet one heavily influenced by upbringing--I think statistics will bear me out on this.....), whereas ethnicity and sexual orientation are not.
Also, sexual orientation and ethnicity, in and of themselves, have not hurt anyone (I believe--subject to correction!), whereas religion definitely has.
Summary: if it's something you can't help that's not hurting anyone, it should be vigorously protected. (Or if it's something you *can* help that's not hurting anyone!) If it's something you chose that is or has been hurting someone, I am opposed.
Vicki Coffman
name: James Colonna
email: jimcolonna@uswest.net
Thursday, 18-Mar-1999 23:41 PST
I find that religous groups are only interested in freedom of speech when it applys to them obtaining a permit to have there saint patrick day parade etc.
name: Bill Restemeyer
email: restemey@idt.net
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 07:08 PST
As I see it, the SPI are a group of people who are voluntarily attacking their oppressors. Anti-gay groups, the KKK, the Nazis (good christians all) are people who are commanded to enforce someone else's dogma in order to restrict the freedoms of people they don't even know. Therefore the SPI are attempting to uphold and extend democratic ideals, while the other groups are working against freedom and democracy.
name: Charles Fiterman
email: cef@geodesic.com
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 07:59 PST
We have the best of all possible censorship laws
in the constitution. It says NO law and by NO law
it does not mean some law or a lot of law.
I support the constitution absolutly even for
those I dislike.
name: Mert Smith
email: merton.smith@yale.edu
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 08:04 PST
The comparison of the Sisters and the KKK is not a good one. The KKK preaches hate and violence, and has a track record of such behavior. The Sisters do not preach hate, nor do they have a record of hurting or killing Catholics. They simply make fun of an institution that has the power to influence govermental entities. They should be allowed to perform.
name: BookerT
email: bt@hair-balls.com
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 09:03 PST
So long as Roman Catholics have the right to promote their religion in public places and public media, the rest of us should have the right to comment on the promoted product in public places and public media.
name: Michael
email: servo@evansville.net
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 09:32 PST
I am a staunch athiest and fully admit to being disgusted by religious tirades concerning everything from 2000 to the Teletubbies. However, upon reviewing the results of the 'Sisters' poll, I seem to detect a bit of hypocrisy on the part of my compatriots.
Voters were overwhelmingly in favor of the Sisters' permit, and even considerably in favor of the KKK
receiving the same unbiased treatment. Yet the majority voted against Catholics having similar rights to their own celebrations or demonstrations. That's not how it works, ladies and gentlemen. If the KKK can preach white supremacy on taxpayer streets, Catholics can preach deistic supremacy there too.
Regardless, I am against permits for any parades. I pay taxes to DRIVE on the city streets. Not to sit in traffic snarls resluting from every Tom-Dick-and-Harry organization's desire to rub its tenets or whinings in the face of every other citizen.
There are many ways to protest injustices (and besides, most demonstrations are the result of extremely questionable or petty PERCEIVED injustices, anyway), and many that are better than orchestrating a public display. I question the motives of many parade or demonstration organizers and ask them if they wouldn't be better off spending their 'parade fund' money on PSAs, advertisments, direct mail, petitions to the government, open forums in rented or donated suitable accommodations, etc.
Demonstrations, once they become disrupting to the everyday lives of average citizens, should be treated like any other form of disturbing the peace. Then maybe our country could ween itself from the 'Springer' mentality that leads us to thrive on martyrdom, controversy, victimization and voyeurism.
Grow up, America.
name: Jeff Lewis
email: jklewis@parallelpac.org
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 13:24 PST
Any group, including the KKK, should be allowed
the same rights the Sisters have been granted as
long as violence is not advocated. The toughest
question to me was should the city use resources
to block streets for a Catholic demonstration. I
voted 'no' because religion has been singled out
in the Constitution for special treatment.
Religions use that to their advantage whenever
possible (no taxes among other things) so should
not be granted government deference to further
their causes.
name: Wayne Aiken
email: waiken@atheists.org
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 13:55 PST
I think this is a prime example of just how truly
and consistently we support the concept of freedom
itself. In reality, we can never have any more freedoms than
we are willing to grant even to our most bitter opponents.
The "freedom for me but not for thee" attitude is, unfortunately,
rampant in today's society-- Its no surprise that the Catholics,
with control-freak leaders that they have always had, oppose
freedom in general. But the challenge is for people on the "Left"
to abandon "political correctness" which is just a mirror image
of the same disdain for freedom. Thus, I'd support permits for
street celebrations be given equally to Catholics, gay protestors,
racists, anti-racists, pro-religion, anti-religion, and *any*
group, so long as the event is peaceful, and the strongest weapon
against such ideology - reason - is free to combat it.
name: Greg McDowell
email: gmcdowell@atheists.org
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 14:06 PST
What's good for the goose etc.
name: e. frantes
email: virtuouspagan@hotmail.com
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 17:00 PST
Here we go again.
First of all, Jack Fertig, AKA Sister BoomBoom,
left the Order a long time ago. Second, in SF,
relgious organizations can and do block off traffic
for celebrations, and in fact, every Sunday are
allowed to double-park, something no other
organization is allowed to do on a regular basis.
Third, there is no interest in holding a KKK or
a neoNazi rally here--sorry, honey, we just don't
have many feebs like that 'round these parts. We
do, however, have a large gay community. And we like
it just fine, thank you very much. Additionally,
the local archdiocese has done little in the way
of caring for "their own" AIDS patients, including
current and former priests. The local archbishop
is an ultraconservative, and keep in mind no one
invited him here, and he seems to think that
the 1st Amendment is optional, and that he should
be allowed to enforce catholic dogma on noncatholics.
And another thing--the xians STOLE the holiday from
the Pagans, and we want it BACK. So there.
name: Dave
email: dbtngdave@aol.com
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 18:36 PST
It seems the majority of those that responded see the paralells in the questions, I would have probably answered differently had the questions not been in the same poll!
The last two questions lost their parralell in that the first refers to an organization and the second refers to a grouping...
name: Dr. Joe Williford
email: joe226@mindspring.com
Friday, 19-Mar-1999 23:49 PST
I guess expecting the Catholic Church to suddenly find a sense of humor is just really too much to expect.
name: George Ricker
email: gricker@iu.net
Saturday, 20-Mar-1999 09:06 PST
Those who support freedom of speech only for opinions and expressions that are politically or socially palatable do not really support freedom of speech. If it means anything at all, the priniciple of freedom of speech means the freedom to articulate ideas and viewpoints that are outrageous, extreme, provocative and/or offensive. Efforts to limit such expressions - regardless of the impulses that motivate them - can only do violence to the freedom of self-expression that is at the very core of all our liberties. All freedoms begin with and idea and the ability to express it. Limit that capacity and you have taken the first critical step toward destroying all freedom for everyone.
name: douglas martin
email: dmartin@roman.net
Sunday, 21-Mar-1999 13:35 PST
I'm sorry that i don't have enough time but i want to say that i am gld to have found your site--i will visit often and i am pleased that there is an alternative to the "god" bunch. thank you.
name: Tim Collins
email: lchrome@hotmail.com
Sunday, 21-Mar-1999 13:48 PST
These Parades, are merely a form of peer pressure, "Look at me I do this", They will all have their protesters, and will have supporters. I am against the reason Catholics don't want Perpetual Indulgence to promote their views, because they are not very "Catholic". That is not right of course, but instead of saying What is right and what is wrong, lets say "Either parades, or no parades". In a place where there is parades, any group should be able to parade, I can't exactly say i'm against parades, considering if there was a parades promoting Atheist veiws, I would be there. Just simply If you don't like KKK, Religions/Cults, or Gays parading, avoid them and there written doctrines.
And don't be afraid to tell KKK members "Whites are human, therefore they are African, because Humans ARE FROM AFRICA!"
-Tim
name: Don Hirschberg
email: dhirsch@centuryinter.net
Sunday, 21-Mar-1999 17:51 PST
The whole point of the 1st amendment is destroyed if when it is to be applied is subjected to some test of suitability. Popular Free Speech is an oxymoron. Only Unpopular Speech needs the protection of the 1st amendment. Other than libel and slander statutes (which are deliberately difficult for public figures to use), and for such clearly criminal acts (for which we already have statutes) such as shouting FIRE! in the proverbial crowded theatre, I don't think so-called hate crime laws involving words are, or should be, constitutional. What ever happened to Voltaire's "I might disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it" - which until recent years I never once heard anyone take issue with? Now we have word police - even on college campuses. I never would have believed it! The best way to deal with words or ideas you hate is with more free speech.
name: Robert Gilmer
email: rsgilmer@unity.ncsu.edu
Monday, 22-Mar-1999 09:49 PST
In reguards to question number two, I personally
think that groups which hate people solely based upon
race, religion, or other factors, are deplorable.
However, the first amendment to the constitution allows
them to have their say in peaceful protests. I do agree with
this part of the amendment, frankly I agree with all of it.
A country cannot be free if its people are not allowed to
express their opinions, however radical or strange, in peaceful
demonstration.
I do not know much about the extent of what the Sisters of
Perpetual Indulgence include in their festival, but I doubt that
it is as bad as the material that the Neo-Nazis spout. Remember,
the S of PI also do charity work as well. Groups like this cannot
be all bad.
name: Barb Reiland
email: bfreiland@cavemen.net
Monday, 22-Mar-1999 22:18 PST
All forms of free speech should be protected. The city
of San Francisco cannot disallow one form just because
it is deemed blasphemous by only one sector. If they
find the festivities so insulting, let them have their
say by protesting it themselves. The city cannot set
a precedent to decide in favor of religious opinion
and against free speech of the minority.
name: Matt
email: B.Smerald@worldnet.att.net
Tuesday, 23-Mar-1999 06:05 PST
I'm forever amazed at Religion's ability to demand rights that they then wish to deny their critics - under the guise of "Religious Freedom".
Seems the concept of censorship stops at the doors of houses of worship, metamorphizing into "religious protest" when their inhabitants practice it.
Going beyond motes and beams, Religion (of all kinds) would deny us our very eyes - those of us, that is, who, like this troupe, would protest that the Emperor _really_ doesn't have any clothes.
name: Xena
email: Xena0xena@aol.com
Tuesday, 23-Mar-1999
Should the public mocking or insulting of religious organizations be
considered a hate-crime?
Insulting/Mocking Jews (and many other non-Christian religions) should be
considered a hate-crime, mocking Christians not.
Why do I distinguish?
Jews are a minority and often victims of discrimination, as are the members of
many other non-Christian religions. They rarely discriminate against or make
it hard for other people to follow their religions.
Christians are a majority and frequently discriminate against non-Christians.
Their influence in all parts of life and society makes it often hard for non-
Christians (including Jews and Atheists) to follow their beliefs.
Another reason is the historical aspect: Jews have been discriminated against
for centuries, and their genocide was even only little more than 50 years ago.
I find it quite disturbing that 78% would allow the KKK and the Nazis to have
such a street event or a demonstration, with only 59% granting the same right
to the Catholics.
This sounds like the religious prejudice and blindness that is usually common
to fundamentalist Christians (and other religious extremists) and should not
be part of the Atheist culture.
Let's get the facts straight: KKK and Nazis try to gain influence on the
American society, Catholics want the same, and Atheists, too. The difference
lies in the purpose:
1) KKK/Nazis support racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, etc., etc. They
support genocide! Murderers like the man in Texas (you know who) are their
heroes.
Thus, they should not be permitted to hold street events or demonstrations.
2) The Catholics are also not exactly fond of Jews or homosexuals, but they do
not support their killing! Wishing them to change is intolerant and foolish,
but it cannot be compared to telling members to kill them or to celebrating
the death of one of them. And the Catholic church is not racist, or at least
not officially racist or much more racist than the American average.
They should be permitted to have a religious street event, as long as it
does not include discrimination of Jews, homosexuals, or other minorities.
3) The Atheists are trying to reach equality. They fight for nondiscrimination
and a better future. Part of this is fighting for secularity and against the
over-mighty power of the Christian churches and their influence on society.
They should be permitted to hold an event.
It is disturbing to me that the Atheists -- fighting discrimination -- are
discriminatory themselves. I can understand (even though I do not agree) that
people say the KKK/Nazis should be permitted to demonstrate, because the first
Amendment also applies to them. But how comes that the same people do not
apply it to the Catholics?!
KKK and Nazis are a greater threat to humanity than Catholics/other religions!
name: Ray Romano
email: Ray75511@aol.com
Wednesday, 24-Mar-1999 18:22 PST
I quote a friend of mine:
The raunchy Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are planning a party in the Castro on Easter, and the catholics are mad -- again. But can our local Sisters be any crazier than the catholic ones, who all claim to be brides of a 2000-year dead guy? The crazy catholics have fathers who aren't fathers, mothers who aren't mothers, brothers who aren't brothers, and sisters who aren't sisters, they swear off sex, and then try to explain "family values" to the rest of us.
Abstinence is the strangest sexual perversion. They make the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence seem almost normal. End quote.
As for myself, the comparison catholics would make to nazis is hypocritical to say the least. Let's not forget that Hitler was a devout catholic from birth to death and the nazis' belt buckles were incribed with "Gott Mit Uns" (God is with us). Then there was the pact between Hitler and the Vatican, which is always being swept under the rug.
Don't forget "family values." Look in the bible. Jesus apparently was not in favor of family values. He never married or even had a girl friend. He just hung around with the guys. "I come not to bring peace but a sword. To set the mother against the father the sister against the brother, the daughter-in-law against the mother, etc." He also said you must hate your father and mother, etc. -Luke 14:26.
When will these people ever wake up!
name: Harold Butterworth
email: Halsbooks@aol.com
Wednesday, 24-Mar-1999 19:02 PST
The Catholic Church should lighten up. Their persistent condemning of gays from the pulpit is an affront to many people. Live and let live, I say. The Catholic Church has too much power; let the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence have their fun and go on with their parade as planned.
name: Andrew Lancashire
email: llysfaen@bellatlantic.net
Wednesday, 24-Mar-1999 19:31 PST
It's their anniversary and they should be allowed to celebrate it on that date. The Taliban is not running this country and neither is the Catholic Crutch.
name: RicH weinstein
email: MMYN30A@prodigy.com
Wednesday, 24-Mar-1999 19:46 PST
About the sister of Perp Indulgence, If they are held back becouse of sex or sex orientation then this is from the church groups in california an attack on possible(but not confirmed) gentitic orientation of atheists that is just as biggoted and on the existence of usa people that are secular creeds,philosophies existence in the world if one isn't also free in the last best place the usa. I think a responce should be and is needed is to prevent such attacks on ideas
expressions that are of unbelevers is to have all the atheist organizations of the world have their own server-and network including
Amer A. web page excerts and equally atheist allience and A.U. and other atheist orgs
that are in the encyclopedia of assoc.
Atheist center of India and Atheists of england, maybe atheists in australia so that
some reality is maintained and brought together but only atheist orgs not for example
humanists, freethinker orgs.
Thanks kind reader,
RicH Weinstein
mmyn30a@prodigy.com
name: Vicki Coffman
email: vncoffman@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 24-Mar-1999 20:49 PST
I want to amend my previous comment that I wish another date had been chosen.
The body of the article did not mention that the date was, in fact, the 20th anniversary of the organizaion, per a member of the orgainization who was kind enough to email me. (I know the headline said it was an anniversary, but I seldom do more than glance at headlines.)
I'm assuming the Sisters have been granted permits in the past on their anniversary, and I see no reason to deny one this year simply because the Sister's anniversary happens to coincide with Easter. To do so would be saying that religion takes priority, it seems to me.
name: j
email: manxxxx@aol.com
Wednesday, 24-Mar-1999 21:38 PST
Please! Give me a break. How can a so-called man of god judge (ergo, calling the sisters neo-nazis) in violation of the "judge not, lest ye be judged." Those drag nuns are not a mockery to catholicism. Whatever happened to the saying that goes something along the lines that copying "is a great form of flattery." I was a religious brother back in the 70s, and just happen to be gay as well. I find the SPIs to be fantastically refreshing. It's a shame there are so many narrow-mined folks still clinging to that dying institution. ... by the way, I'm not cancelling my trip to San Francisco in April!
name: Kamakhya Devi
email: ananta@gowebway.com
Thursday, 25-Mar-1999 01:55 PST
Being a catholic is a choice. Being black, gay or female is not. Christians agree to follow certain precepts that some of us find laughable at best and downright evil at worst.
The Sisters bring to light some of the irrational dogma espoused by the catholic church. They do so in a comical, non-threatening manner. If the church feels so threatened by them, then perhaps they are lacking in conviction of their own beliefs.
Kamakhya Devi
name: Pete Isaacson aka PENFOLD
email: penfold@artnet.net
Thursday, 25-Mar-1999 02:50 PST
I may be straight (& married) but not narrow. I count among many of my friends, a couple of The Sisters.
For the Catholics to oppose the SoPI only shows the moribund backwards-thinking of this group.
SF, IMHO is a place that welcomes and celebrates the unique and wide diversity of cultures.
To deny the permit is to insult everyone and everything that the city stands for.
name: Mike
email: mikestokes@earthlink.net
Thursday, 25-Mar-1999 10:30 PST
Gays have to put up with criticism and ridicule every day in both the public and private realms. Why can't Catholics handle it? I see no reason both celebrations should not be allowed to continue, even though one is based on a completely absurd notion.
name: Kevin Seiler
email: mseiler@racal-pelagos.com
Thursday, 25-Mar-1999 11:11 PST
I think it's ridiculous that the Catholics would consider the actions of the Sisters to be a hate crime. By the same standard, when a clergyman denounces a person because of their sexuality, then that's a hate crime too. The Catholics in San Fransisco need a finger poked in their collective eye!
name: Crispy
email: Crispy@crackcocaine.com
Thursday, 25-Mar-1999 17:30 PST
Whenever one group has enough influence to dictate
what is appropriate for free people to do, we lose
the freedom we fought for.
Should the Catholic Church be allowed to tell us what we can and can't do?
What happens when the Catholic Church offends
other groups? Will they be permitted to ban
Catholic public events?
name: Zem
email: Zyzi@aol.com
Thursday, 25-Mar-1999 18:02 PST
If ya ain't offended any body,
ya ain't used yur freedom a speach.
name: Nick LeRoy
email: nick.leroy@norland.com
Friday, 26-Mar-1999 10:28 PST
The double standards that most xtians display is
getting truely out of hand. These "sisters"
have followed the due process and have absolutely
every right to hold their party. Why is mocking
Catholics WORSE than openly discriminating against
gays, atheists, and other non-xtian groups? I
don't understand how these groups can feel justified
in their behaviour.
name: Jim Heldberg
email: jheldberg@atheists.org
Friday, 26-Mar-1999 12:17 PST
For my comments, please see my San Francisco Views column on the
American Atheists website.
Go to Poll/Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
