|
Post by FloggingSully on Mar 21, 2007 13:55:19 GMT -5
Really, well someone should have told that to Joe Camal And Smokey the Bear, and McGruff the Crime Dog
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Mar 21, 2007 15:29:14 GMT -5
Those guys are still around. Camal can not use the Joe Camal cartoon any longer because it was viewed as the cigarette company intentionaly targeting kids. This is the same reason they have stopped smoking in kids cartoons and looney toons has gone back and removed smoking from their old cartoons. There is a diffrence in targeting kids to things that are not right and things that my save their life wouldnt you agree.
|
|
|
Post by FloggingSully on Mar 21, 2007 15:46:56 GMT -5
"Those guys are still around" -Yup, still around trying to influence other people's kids.
"Camal can not use the Joe Camal cartoon any longer because it was viewed as the cigarette company intentionaly targeting kids. This is the same reason they have stopped smoking in kids cartoons and looney toons has gone back and removed smoking from their old cartoons" -I think they could still use Joe Camal but chose not to because they were getting bad press, at least according to wikipedia (which may not be the best source). Couldn't the smoking being pulled from kids cartoons be considered someone trying to influence other people's kids not to smoke? what gives them the right to do that?
"There is a diffrence in targeting kids to things that are not right and things that my save their life wouldnt you agree" -I absolutely agree, but who's to say what is right and what isn't? Kids have tons of people/companies try to influence them every day.
|
|
Mike
AA
Wrestling With The Devil
Posts: 660
|
Post by Mike on Mar 22, 2007 8:04:36 GMT -5
Still on the rabbit trail I see. I guess a question I have is; If the state, or others has the right to dictate what is truth, and should be told to kids, does anyone see the danger that the state or others would then have the right to tell who can and can't have children? This seems like a logical process to me. I also hear about the danger of religion and the harm they do. I will grant, there is a lot, but you have to judge just as much on recent history as past history. With that being said there never seems to be anything mentioned about the good some religious groups do.
I would also point out, although many will disagree with me, any religion, has to be judged on it's founder, not its followers, so if making judgment of a religion, judge it accordingly. Then the debate can be Does so and so practicing Islam represent, or mirror the teaching of Mohamed? Does the the follower of Judaism follow the teachings of Moses? Does the follower of Christianity follow the teachings of Jesus?
The rights and responsibilities of parents is a much bigger issue than many realize. To take away from their rights is something that has never worked in history. Even in Sparta when the child was taken away from their parents at the age of 7. It created a warrior society, but in the end, that society fell.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 22, 2007 9:13:33 GMT -5
I haven't read this entire thread, but I'm pretty sure I've read everything in it many times before on this and the other message board. At any rate, I'll toss in my two cents worth one more time and you can take it or leave it.
Religion depends on faith, not proof, and this is the crux (no pun intended) of the value of religion in people's lives. There will never be proof for or against the existence of God. If there were proof of God's existence, faith would become unnecessary and there would no longer be any religion, just science.
Science depends on proof, not faith. If a theory can't be impirically demonstrated to be correct (given our technological limitations), it isn't science, no matter how much anyone believes it to be true (faith).
This is why religion and science not only can exist together, but must never be confused with each other. When we seek to discredit religion because there is no scientific proof, or seek to discredit science by introducing religious concepts, we are mixing apples and oranges and will never succeed. They are entirely different realms, they serve entirely different purposes, and they are subject to entirely different scrutinies in order to justify them.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 22, 2007 9:49:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately, Spider, you can't put it all black and white like this. Religion imposes its views on science all the time and vice versa. Things like Heaven after death, Creation of humanity, and stem cell research all cross science and religion, just to name a few.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 22, 2007 10:16:22 GMT -5
Science will always give rise to ethical questions (stem cell research, abortion), even if religion weren't in the picture, but it is only when the Bible is taken literally (a big mistake in my opinion, and not the intention of its human authors), that science and religion really clash.
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Mar 22, 2007 11:39:56 GMT -5
I dont view this as a religious vs athiest topic but more in line with what Mike said and what I have been saying. WHo has the right to take a special intrest in influencing our kids for their own purposes. And why do they think it is ok to go against what parents are teaching. The gov. doesnt have the right to do so and neither do individual groups.
Spider I see what you are saying and I would support your right to raise your children in that way, do you not support the rights of parents to raise their children in the way they choose?
|
|
|
Post by FloggingSully on Mar 22, 2007 12:11:18 GMT -5
"WHo has the right to take a special intrest in influencing our kids for their own purposes." -As long as we have freedom of speach, pretty much everyone
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 22, 2007 12:28:54 GMT -5
"Spider I see what you are saying and I would support your right to raise your children in that way, do you not support the rights of parents to raise their children in the way they choose?"
Ugly,
I support parents' right to raise their children according to their beliefs, so long as it is not contrary to public policy (i.e. sexual abuse, teaching them to steal, etc.). It is my strong belief, however, that religion is a personal matter. Government (including the schools) must never tell anyone what they should or should not believe or how they may worship (with the aforementioned caveat). Public education must not include any religious education. Where religion and science contradict one another, a science curriculum is obligated to present the currently accepted scientific theory and credible alternative scientific theories. It is not obligated to address the myriad of religious beliefs which may not coincide with science. This is the job of religious school and of the parents. If religion is to be taught in public schools, it is taught in religion classes and is not to be confused with science. Government has an obligation to keep out of the religion business, and we all should be thankful for this.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 22, 2007 12:46:17 GMT -5
Who the heck is Joe Camal? Are you talking about Joe Camel, the cartoon character?
|
|
|
Post by ugly on Mar 22, 2007 12:48:31 GMT -5
Who the heck is Joe Camal? Are you talking about Joe Camel, the cartoon character? Yes the cartoon character.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 22, 2007 12:48:53 GMT -5
Government has an obligation to keep out of the religion business, and we all should be thankful for this.
If only it were this simple. Religious establishments receive tax breaks and other incentives from the government in exchange for votes and what not.
|
|
|
Post by Spider on Mar 22, 2007 13:03:45 GMT -5
Government has an obligation to keep out of the religion business, and we all should be thankful for this. If only it were this simple. Religious establishments receive tax breaks and other incentives from the government in exchange for votes and what not. I didn't say government does stay out of the religion business, I said it should.
|
|