Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Claims STDs Are the Result of Sex Outside of Marriage and the Revenge of Hippies

Posted on by

Phil Robertson has done it again.

The Duck Dynasty patriarch used his constitutional right to free speech while accepting a free speech award the Andrew Breitbart Defender of the First Amendment Award at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday.

During his acceptance speech, Robertson noted that 110 million Americans suffer from sexually transmitted diseases, which led him to voice his view that sex outside of the confines of marriage is wrong and only leads to problems.

I dont want you, America, to get sick, said Phil Robertson. Youre disease-free, and shes disease-free you marry, you keep your sex right there. You wont get sick from a sexually transmitted disease.

There is a penalty to be paid from what the beatniks, and it morphed into the hippies you say, what do you call the 110 million with the sexually transmitted illness? Phil Robertson continued. It is the revenge of the hippies! Sex, drugs and rock n roll have come back to haunt us in a bad way.

Phil Robertson has been in hot water several times for his outspoken ways. He was suspended indefinitely from his show by A&E following his anti-gay remarks made during a GQ interview in December 2013, but later reinstated.

Original post:

Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty Claims STDs Are the Result of Sex Outside of Marriage and the Revenge of Hippies

Tuesday 3 March 12:15 St Andrew's : How Free is Free Speech?

Posted on by

St Andrew's Trust for the study of Religion and Society March events reminder

Tuesday 3 March, 12:15 at St Andrew's How Free is Free Speech?

Mr David Rutherford, Chief Human Rights Commissioner will be holding an in-depth conversation on Free Speech.

The recent massacre of staff of the satirical magazineCharlie Hebdo in Paris has reminded us of the wide range of standards applied to the question of how free can free speech be, especially in the context of satire.

In an attempt to offer a balanced view, we have invited our Chief Human Rights commissioner, David Rutherford, to clarify for us the standards required by the lay in New Zealand.

The Human Rights Commissioner helps New Zealanders to know and realise the human rights of themselves and others. The first of its two main functions is to advocate and promote respect for human rights, of which freedom of expression is commonly seen to be one. The second function is to encourage harmonious relations between diverse people in New Zealand society.

Having established the New Zealand position, the Conversation will look at overseas conditions which include recent tragic events and to ask whether there can be reconciliation between human rights in general and free speech in particular.

The interviewer, Noel Cheer, is a long-term member of the Board of The St Andrew's Trust for the study of Religion and Society. He has recently completed a seven-year series of half-hour interviews on Auckland's Triangle Television.

Tuesday 10 March, 12:15 at St Andrew's

THEOLOGY IN PAINTING: Illustrated walk through and theology behind the Vatican's master artworks. Featuring Sistine Chapel, Stanze di Raffaello and Raphael's Coronation & Transfiguration by Dr Christopher Longhurst.

More here:

Tuesday 3 March 12:15 St Andrew's : How Free is Free Speech?

Freedom of speech means tolerating opposing viewpoints

Posted on by

Freedom of speech and expression is very important for a healthy, civilized society. Its how most technological and artistic innovation takes place. A healthy debate or discussion between members of a society is the most efficient way to solve problems. It is how the classical societies in Greece and Rome came up with the most influential pieces of literature that we still study today. Without this right, many ideas, beliefs and inventions would not exist, leaving the majority of the society living in ignorance.

It is considered a basic human right by the U.N. charter and is the basis of functioning democracies. In addition to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, many state constitutions and state and federal laws protect freedom of speech. One of the major reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the build-up of anger over years because ordinary citizens couldnt express themselves. Its a classic example of societal breakdown because dissenting opinions were suppressed.

However, I have noticed that people become increasingly agitated upon hearing opinions that they consider too dumb or too ignorant, and the discussion quickly descends to insults, comebacks, accusations, unfair comparisons and hyperbole.

This is especially true on the Internet. We have to understand that just because somebody has a differing opinion, that is not an indicator of their intelligence or a marker of how much respect they deserve.

Australian actor Leo McKern said, It is easy to believe in freedom of speech for those with whom we agree. It does not cast doubt over ones status or ability to serve as productive as a member of society. Rather, it shows their willingness to contribute to our society in the way they think best and that is commendable. Insulting someone for an opinion that they hold casts doubt over our faith in democracy and ability to tolerate other people and different opinions.

I love living in a society where people are allowed to express their opinions regardless of how politically incorrect they may be. Regardless of who you are, every human deserves a degree of respect. Disagreements do not necessarily have to result in disputes. We are bonded not by our faiths, our race or our political opinion, but by the air we breathe, the water we drink, the planet we all share and a common desire to better our lives and to secure a bright future. Every other difference is trivial and every other disagreement must be solved, for our future is tied to one other.

Here is the original post:

Freedom of speech means tolerating opposing viewpoints

Wavering faith? New hotline 1-800-DOUBTS could help

Posted on by

Story highlights A new helpline is believed to be the first for people suffering from a loss of faith Founded by the group Recovering From Religion, 1-84-I-DOUBT-IT launched on Friday.

He's been a Christian for 20 years but can't believe in the Bible anymore. He hasn't told his friends or family and still sits, uneasy, in church each Sunday.

"I feel like I'm lying," he tells the woman on the other end of the phone. "I'm pretending to be a person that I'm not.

"But what if I'm wrong?" he asks. "Will I go to hell?"

"Hmmm..." the woman says, after stumbling through an awkward answer. "I thought you weren't going to make this hard."

If this call had been real, the woman says, she would have dissuaded the man from falling for Pascal's Wager, the argument that it's better to believe in God because -- well, hell is an awfully hot place to spend eternity.

But the call wasn't real. The man and woman are volunteers training for 1-84-I-DOUBT-IT, believed to be the country's first helpline for people wrestling with religion, suffering from a loss of faith, or confused about why their son or wife seems to have suddenly embraced atheism.

Founded by the group Recovering From Religion and cobbled together with a small budget, the helpline launched on Friday. Nearly 100 volunteers are ready to field calls 24/7 on the weekends and from 6-12 Central Time on weeknights.

Calls will be kept confidential and the callers can remain anonymous, said Sarah Morehead, Recovering From Religion's executive director. There's no physical call center; instead volunteers and callers are connected through a virtual private network

The volunteer agents, who are not licensed counselors or therapists, will not steer callers toward atheism, Morehead said. Rather, they will offer a sympathetic ear and practical tips for finding secular or religious communities. One script they can use, for example, asks callers about their beliefs and matches them with local congregations. Other guidelines direct callers with serious problems to secular therapists or, if necessary, a suicide hotline.

View post:

Wavering faith? New hotline 1-800-DOUBTS could help

Estonia's pro-NATO Reform party wins vote

Posted on by

TALLINN: Estonia's governing pro-NATO Reform party came top in parliamentary elections on Sunday (Mar 1), fought amid concerns over a militarily resurgent Russia, but analysts warned that forging a coalition would be challenging.

President Toomas Hendrik Ilves is expected to ask Reform chief, outgoing Prime Minister Taavi Roivas, to build a coalition on the basis of the 30 seats his party won in the 101-member parliament.

The centrist Reform party lost three seats, according to the official results. Meanwhile the opposition pro-Kremlin Centre party was up one seat to 27 and the outgoing Social Democrat junior coalition partners down four to 15.

"Reform will be able to form a government ... (but) coalition talks might be complicated," leading Estonian political commentator Ahto Lobjakas told AFP, noting increased volatility with six parties now in parliament, up from the previous four.

The parliamentary newcomers are a free-market liberal party and an anti-immigration conservative party, who secured 15 seats between them.

"In terms of Estonia's pro-Western orientation, commitment to EU, NATO, all this will remain and possibly become more pronounced," he added, describing the entry of the two newcomers as a swing to the right.

Moscow's annexation of Crimea last year and its meddling in eastern Ukraine have galvanised the European Union, including eurozone member Estonia where a quarter of the 1.3 million population are ethnic Russian.

Military manoeuvres by Moscow on Estonia's border just days ahead of the vote further stoked deep concerns in Europe that the Kremlin could attempt to destabilise countries that were in its orbit during Soviet times.

NATO is countering the moves by boosting defences on Europe's eastern flank with a spearhead force of 5,000 troops and command centres in six formerly communist members of the alliance, including one in Estonia.

"If they (the Russians) come in here, Estonia can't do anything ... I'm not sure NATO will help us out," Pyotr Sirotkin, a 25-year-old student at Tallinn University, told AFP as he cast his ballot in the capital.

Read more from the original source:

Estonia's pro-NATO Reform party wins vote

NATO spending down despite Russia tensions: think-tank

Posted on by

Thursday, 26 February 2015 18:49

BRUSSELS: Many NATO member countries are spending less on defence despite promises to boost their budgets in the face of growing tensions with Russia, a think-tank said Thursday.

The European Leadership Network looked at figures for 2015 from 14 NATO members to see if they meet pledges made at a summit of the US-led military alliance last September.

All 28 NATO nations vowed to reverse a steady decline in defence spending and increase expenditure levels to two percent of annual economic output within 10 years.

"Despite concerns over Russian aggression in Ukraine and political commitments made at the NATO Wales Summit in September 2014... many are failing to live up to the commitments made," the think-tank said.

The tiny Baltic state of Estonia was the only country expected to spend 2.0 percent of gross domestic product on defence this year, London-based ELN said.

Six countries -- Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, the Netherlands and Romania -- are due to increase military expenditure but will not meet the target, while France is on course for a flat defence budget between 2014 and 2015.

Britain, Germany, Canada, Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria are all set to cut defence spending, the think-tank said.

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg has repeatedly urged cash-strapped member nations to boost funding to meet increases in defence spending by Russia.

Russia's alleged involvement in Ukraine -- which the Kremlin has denied -- has sparked fears in NATO that Moscow could target the alliance's eastern European members.

Go here to read the rest:

NATO spending down despite Russia tensions: think-tank

NSA authorization to collect bulk phone data extended to June 1

Posted on by

The approval will be the last before the relevant statute in the Patriot Act comes up for renewal

A U.S. secret court has extended until June 1 the controversial bulk collection of private phone records of Americans by the National Security Agency.

The government said it had asked for reauthorization of the program as reform legislation, called the USA Freedom Act, was stalled in Congress. The bill would require telecommunications companies rather than the NSA to hold the bulk data, besides placing restrictions on the search terms used to retrieve the records.

An added urgency for Congress to act comes from the upcoming expiry on June 1 of the relevant part of the Patriot Act that provides the legal framework for the bulk data collections. Under a so-called "sunset" clause, the provision will lapse unless it is reauthorized in some form or the other by legislation.

Section 215 of the Patriot Act, which relates to business records, was used by the government to vacuum telephone metadata from customers of Verizon, according to revelations in 2013 by former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden. The section comes bundled with "gag orders" that prohibit service providers from making such information demands public.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had previously extended in December the authorization for the program by 90 days after the USA Freedom Act, backed by the administration of President Barack Obama, failed to pass in the Senate. A version of the bill had passed the House of Representatives.

The government has now sought renewal of the current program up to June 1 in order to align its expiry date with the sunset on the same day of Section 215 of the Patriot Act, according to a joint statement by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Friday.

In March last year, as part of his reform program for the NSA, Obama had proposed that the data should remain with the telephone companies, and government would have access to that data only through individual court orders. The president, however, said there was need for new legislation to put these changes into effect.

With Section 215 and two other key rules set to lapse on June 1, Congress "has a limited window" before the sunset to enact new legislation "that would implement the President's proposed path forward for the telephony metadata program, while preserving key intelligence authorities," according to a statement by the White House press secretary.

A number of civil rights and privacy groups have asked Congress to oppose reauthorization of Section 215, one of several provisions in U.S. law that have provided the legal backing for NSA surveillance of people both in the country and abroad. The sunset of section 215 may not end bulk records collection, particularly of investigations that started before the expiry, according to some interpretations. Government could also use other statutes for domestic bulk data collection.

See the article here:

NSA authorization to collect bulk phone data extended to June 1

Posted in NSA

What if the government fears freedom?

Posted on by

By Andrew P. Napolitano

What if the current massive spying on Americans began with an innocent secret executive order signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986? What if Reagan contemplated that he was only authorizing American spies to spy on foreign spies unlawfully present in the United States?

What if Reagan knew and respected the history of the Fourth Amendment? What if the essence of that history is the Colonial revulsion at the British use of general warrants?

What if general warrants were issued by a secret court in London and authorized British agents in America to search wherever they wished and to seize whatever they found? What if the revulsion at this British government practice was so overwhelming that it led to the Revolutionary War against the king?

What if the whole purpose of the Fourth Amendment was to outlaw general warrants? What if the Fourth Amendment specifically guarantees the right to privacy to all in America in their persons, houses, papers and effects?

What if, in order to emphasize its condemnation of general warrants, the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant from a judge before invading the persons, houses, papers or effects of anyone and lays down the preconditions for the issuance of such warrants? What if those preconditions are individualized suspicion and articulated evidence of crime called probable cause about the specific person whose privacy the government seeks to invade?

What if these principles of constitutional fidelity, privacy and probable cause and the unlawfulness of general warrants have been regarded universally and publicly as quintessentially American values values that set this nation apart from all others?

What if the administration of President George W. Bush was so embarrassed that 9/11 happened on its watch that it fought a useless public war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and a pernicious private war against American values by unleashing American spies on innocent Americans as to whom there was no individualized probable cause so that it could create the impression it was doing something to keep America safe from another 9/11-like attack?

What if the Bush folks took Reagan's idea of spying on foreign spies and twisted it so that they could spy on not just foreign spies but also on foreign persons? What if they took that and leapt to spying on Americans who communicated with foreign persons?

What if they then concluded that it was easier to spy on all Americans rather than just those who communicated with foreign persons? What if they claimed in secret that all this was authorized by Reagan's executive order and two federal statutes, their unique interpretations of which they refused to discuss in public?

Read more:

What if the government fears freedom?