If you go to a private college, there always the high roller donors who think they can control things. If you go to a public college/university, then there are always the taxpayers who think they can trumpet about their big buck tax support.

While I might choose not to go Sex Workers Art Show, after seeing Annie Oakley on tv last night I have a higher opinion of the show. She is a well-spoken woman who was treated extremely shabbily by the host of the show. She was spoken over and interrupted every time she opened her mouth to explain. She definitely has more class and better manners than the host of the show.

Interestingly enough, she did say, the show isn’t for everyone. Perhaps the workers of a multi-billion dollar a year industry need a little more than a cursory glance. Perhaps the point is to put a face on those who it might be easier to marginalize and dismiss.

So I suppose if you saw a 6′2″ man pull a six year old behind some bushes and then start to sexually assault her, you would do nothing except pray for the man. You wouldn’t bother to come to that little girl’s rescue.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say? Are you saying that it is okay to practice evil? Is it okay not to be held accountable for our actions?

You certainly made a quantum leap there with your summation of what Michael was trying to say. I am curious to know why you would characterize those who aren’t Michael defines as not angry as ‘barely-religious and without standards?’

I came close to agreeing with your for a change, but you slipped up there and told the reader what God thinks.

You stated, “He only cares about souls.” I am not sure you can say what God thinks or what God cares about. You can BELIEVE what God thinks or knows but I don’t think you can indicate that you KNOW. I believe you mean well but you are presuming too much…..

Not angry here…~~splash~~

Who defines morals?

1. The individual
2. A group of angry people who don’t like what they see?
3. A group of angry people, who choose not to do or participate in themselves, but allow individuals to make their own moral choices.
4. A group of angry people who choose not to do or participate themselves, but also wants to make sure no-one else gets to choose for themselves either
5 A group of angry people who express hatred, anger and malice to anyone who does not follow their own particular brand of moral man-made doctrine, derived from some highly debatable meaning of text that does not explicitly define morality for all people, all issues, all forms of sexuality, all forms of sex and all forms of “acceptable” sex and “all forms of “unacceptable sex”, all forms of “acceptable nudity” and all forms of “unacceptable nudity”.
6. A group of angry people who deny their prime religious directive to love all individuals, to respect all individuals and to let all individuals make their own choices of morality according to their own interpretation of the difference between the religious doctrine of man and the “word” of God.
7. A group of angry people who want to pre-empt God’s punishment for not following God’s word, by taking the punishment action themselves as if they, and they alone understand what God meant by “morality”.
8. A group of angry people who don’t understand that “punishment” if any is Gods right alone to give.

I understand as I have said many times before there are two types of Religious people.

1. Religious people who are angry and motivated by their anger and hatred for others to oppress others historically in all manners of violation of their man-made religious “doctrines” as if they are the sole under stander of what the man-made doctrine is even if it’s not Gods “doctrine”… These religious people are known as “obligation keepers”, follow church made rituals, have inconsistent doctrine in history, are often wrong in their doctrine, never in agreement on doctrine, and are focused on obeying laws whether or not they understand God’s “only” single law, “believe in me”, all else is forgiven.

2. Religious people who are not angry, love their fellow man, tolerate individual choice and interpretation of God’s word, allow God to determine the punishment, not man for “doctrine” violations, and who understand that religious history is fraught with oppression, cruelty, hatred, and violence (even killing), when God’s single command and law “believe in me, all else is forgiven, is not understood and followed with a life of kindness, tolerance, love and comfort for individual suffering, individual choice, and individual freedom to follow God’s word as understood only between that one individual and God.

I object to anyone who tells me how to interrupt God’s definition of morality. In my humble opinion if God wanted us to be ashamed of who we are in our own private (and even public) revealing of the shape of our skin, he would have made all of us to be born with clothes, never hold hands, never kiss, never hug, never have any display of affection (in public or otherwise), never have sex and never enjoy the senses of the body we were given.

In my opinion, it is ignorant man-made doctrine, to declare we must wear clothes to get into heaven AND NEVER HAVE OR ENJOY SEX IN ANY FORM.

Are some religious people declaring God an ignorant engineer of the human body? He did not design it with clothes.
He only cares about souls; everything else is petty hatred for the right of individuals to choose what God means in the scriptures.

Like a triceratopless?

Maybe you better check. I worked in Springfield not too far from a topless bar, etc. My co-worker told me that a person had to be 21 to enter.

Ahh! A PEEP-show!

GOOD ONE!