Town Swearing Ban Cursed at Protest

It was a street battle pitting the champions of civility against those decrying censorship. It was not a fight for those with delicate ears.

The foul mouthed confrontation took place Monday the town hall of Middleborough, Mass., which recently banned cursing and threatened to punish it with $20 tickets.

Former Marine Adam Kokesh, 30, of Santa Fe, organized a protest against the ban, calling Middleborough's effort to control its citizens' speech "more offensive, vulgar and obscene than any curse word."

"It is absolutely immoral to use the force of government against someone acting peacefully," said Kokesh, who used Facebook to assemble the protesters.

The ban, which residents approved at a June 11 town hall meeting by a 180-53 vote, would make public profanity a non-criminal offense. It would replace an old bylaw, deemed unenforceable by police, under which the offense was criminal.

Continue reading at gma.yahoo.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

http://www.divinenewsnetwork.com Min. Thomas Allen

I agree with this… Its disgusting how these kids vulgar talk is today. There is not a day that goes by that I hear little kids around here even those around 4-7 years old where every other word out of their mouths are curses. You can't even take your family out to nice restaurants without hearing nothing but cursing from families and sadly to the very youngest of them. Since people get offended when you mention God to them and Morals, maybe this will tone that language down a bit.
- Hocus_Pocus
  
  Just because you are offended by an immoral word, does not mean you have the right to legislate against it and force others to abide by your morality. No one is being directly harmed here, except your emotions, which do not count.
  
  It's theocons like you that would take away individual liberty from people just so you can be less offended.
  
  I shouldn't even have to mention the fact that free speech according to the constitution means just that, the freedom to speak however one wants.
  - Windy Willow
    
    No free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want.
    
    For example you cannot yell fire in a packed theater.
    
    Why don't you try out your free speech by writing an email to Obama saying you are going to kill him.
    
    Walk into a bank and say this is a 'stick up'.
    
    Now maybe your children can tell you to F-off, using your free speech outline.
    However, please spare the rest of us your potty mouthed prodigies up bringing.
    - Hocus_Pocus
      
      Your examples have been pointed out before and fail to recognize the difference in free speech vs. property rights:
      
      If you yell fire in a theatre, you are directly violating the property rights of the theatre owner. By purchasing the ticket, you agreed to respect the theatre property and abide by its rules. This is not free speech. This is a violation of property rights.
      
      Threats, are a direct threat to engage in criminal action, and are criminal.
      
      Swear words are not a threat to engage in criminal action, nor do they invade property rights.
  - http://www.divinenewsnetwork.com Min. Thomas Allen
    
    I can say the same when we say God Bless you in public schools and kids are hunted down by the ACLU. Where is the free speech?
    
    As the bible even says:
    
    Isaiah 5:20, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (KJV)
    - Hocus_Pocus
      
      The public schools have property owners.
      
      Property owners have the right to restrict speech on their property, just as you do in your own home. If someone does not abide by that speech you have the right to expel them from your property.
      - Eric
        
        "The public schools have property owners."
        
        Yes, they do; they're called taxpayers. If you noticed, the "owners" voted overwhelmingly in favor of the ban: "The ban, which residents approved at a June 11 town hall meeting by a 180-53 vote"
      - Hocus_Pocus
        
        Good catch. I've been waiting for someone to pick up on that…
        
        So public schools are free to restrict God if they like. – As your argument clearly points out. They also could ban any religions insignia on public grounds according to that… Be careful what you wish for.
        
        However, when individuals are peacably protesting our government, as they have the right to do, they have the right in free speech to do so. The town can't pass a ban that you can't protest on their property, because protesting is a constitutional right. Therefore, they can't restrict free speech in protest.
        
        If they wanted to just restrict swearing on public grounds in general, they can. But a protest is granted protection.
      - Eric
        
        "So public schools are free to restrict God if they like."
        
        No, not if "they" like, only if "we" (again, meaning the "owners") like. If "they" do such and such or restrict so and so AGAINST the wishes of the majority of the taxpayers (the "owners"), "they" are acting as a tyranny, not as a servant of "we," the taxpaying public.
      - ericsaknowitall
        
        Sounds like you have no principles…
        
        I guess in your world all that is needed to pass any law is a majority vote. I guess if the majority votes for slavery that makes it ok?
      - Eric
        
        You've determined that I have no principles based on two short responses on a blog post? And you're calling me a knowitall?
  - Wayne
    
    The words that come from our mouths are an expression of the character that lies within. Disrespect has come to be in fashion here in America. It has come for many reasons, not the least of which is that the profane have no respect for themselves and others. In addition, those people who they violate with their language are restricted in their response. If we were free to respond to the insult of boorish people and their profane language with a strong punch to the mouth, people would consider thinking before opening their foolish mouths. They might begin to learn respect. At present there is no consequence for the fool who speaks profanely in public, so he continues to show himself to be a fool and others are forced to put up with it. The City has done the right thing, even if it is unenforceable. Such a law might help people to think before opening their putrid mouths. It was once taught in the home and school to think before speaking. Today, people would rather claim their free speech rights than inconvenience themselves with a little mental exercise of self control while choosing the right word for the occasion. This would be an improvement for the formerly foul mouthed person who now would be a display of decency in character and courtesy for others. It is the all about me people who must claim their right to profanity.
  - Dntmkmecomovrther
    
    "…force others to abide by your morality." Seriously? Then I suppose hollering 'FIRE" in a theatre is OK by your view? Some language is just not appropriate. How would it be if our congress actually called each other by the names they earn and deserve?
    
    Frankly, if people can not express themselves without profanity, they have a lot to learn…and unfortunately they don't seem to be learning it from our current government schools.
    - Hocus_Pocus
      
      Yelling "Fire" is not about free speech, but violating property rights.
      
      Read above posts before you post such ignorant comments.
  - Evermyrtle
    
    If what you are saying is true why is the name of my SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST illegal in many places, where you can be jailed for uses it.. It may offend you but like you said about our emotions being offended, your emotions do not count any more that our emotions count.
    - Hocus_Pocus
      
      Those "places" have a different set of laws, and a different constitution. I don't agree with them, but we are talking about America here…
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Really??? I thought Santa Fee was in the USA and I was referring to any town in the USA. It is the same everywhere in the USA. By the way JESUS IS IN THE USA, TOO. When HIS people rise to meet HIM in the air, this will occur in the USA, as well as the rest of the world. I imagine that most of these towns have little concern, about what you or I think about their laws.
Hocus_Pocus

Your examples have been pointed out before and fail to recognize the difference in free speech vs. property rights:

If you yell fire in a theatre, you are directly violating the property rights of the theatre owner. By purchasing the ticket, you agreed to respect the theatre property and abide by its rules. This is not free speech. This is a violation of property rights.

Threats, are a direct threat to engage in criminal action, and are criminal.

Swear words are not a threat to engage in criminal action, nor do they invade property rights.
- Windy Willow
  
  So in other words, there is a limit to free speech, just like I said.
  
  Thanks for making my point.
  - Hocus_Pocus
    
    No, there is not a limit. The false shouter of "fire," therefore, is punishable not because free speech should be restricted, but because he is violating the property right of others.
    
    Threatening others is direct aggression. That is an illegal action. He is being punished not because free speech should be restricted, but because he is directly aggressing against others.
    
    Swear words, again, are not direct threats nor violations of property rights. Which you still cannot prove.
    - Windy Willow
      
      The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:
      
      “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.”
      
      Freedom of speech includes the right:
      
      Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
      West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
      Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
      Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
      To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
      Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
      To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
      Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
      To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
      Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
      To engage in symbolic speech, e.g., burning the flag in protest.
      Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
    - Windy Willow
      
      Freedom of speech does not include the right:
      
      To incite actions that would harm others (e.g. “[S]hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
      Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
      To make or distribute obscene materials.
      Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
      To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
      United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
      To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
      Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1983).
      Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
      Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
      Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
      Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
      - Hocus_Pocus
        
        You still don't get it:
        
        Those decisions are because those "actions" of speaking are not limits to free speech, but criminal actions involving aggression or violations of property rights.
        
        You can call it a limit to free speech, but again, it isn't speech that is being restricted, but the criminal actions of aggression, or violations of property rights ( "school-sponsored event" "school newspaper" – both school property; draft card – property of the US government.)
      - keyboardshark
        
        @ Hocus_Pocus says: "Those decisions are because those "actions" of speaking are not limits to free speech, but criminal actions involving aggression or violations of property rights. " (In reference to Windy Willow's list).
        
        Let me get this straight. Windy Willow's list included "To make or distribute obscene materials" which you have now labeled as "criminal", yet you say shouting obscenities in public is not. Obviously, there ARE limits on obscene speech, but you do not seem to see the connection.
        
        Also, the list included "To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. " which is neither criminal nor involves property rights, yet the courts have decided against it. So you see, there are instances where standards are imposed on free speech, even when they do not constitute a "criminal" or "property rights" element as you have conveniently chose to hide behind.
      - keyknowsall
        
        I'm pretty sure a school newspaper has property rights..
        
        I don't think hocus pocus said obscene materials are criminal, nor should they be.
      - keyboardshark
        
        He specifically said "Those decisions are because those "actions" of speaking are not limits to free speech, but criminal actions involving aggression or violations of property rights." So either it has to be "criminal" or involve "property rights" in his estimation. If obscene materials are not criminal, then how do they involve property rights?
        
        BTW, it's getting a little tiring seeing individuals such as yourself making up a username based on someone else's nickname in order to ridicule them. This seems rather juvenile to me.
        
        I suggest you coin your own unique username so that you don't have to resort to these juvenile tactics, and that way we can have an honest discussion of the issues as adults. And as a bonus, you won't have to keep changing your username to some other clever but snarky version every time you make a reply to someone else with whom you disagree.
    - Windy Willow
      
      The site admins are still trying to approve the part about what Freedon of speech includes.
      - Windy Willow
        
        http://www.comportone.com/connie/articles/freespc… give this article a look.
      - Hocus_Pocus
        
        What a crappy article. Our founders believed in individual liberty, and profanity (which could be anything "society" deems as profane) is of the collective, not the individual.
        
        Furthermore, this article lacks any proof, but subjectively argues in favor of a viewpoint..
        
        You obviously still don't get it.
      - Windy Willow
        
        It's called a commentary for a reason.
        
        You are giving yourself away with the 'collective' card.
        
        So the 'society' of this town deemed profanity to a ticketable offense.
        
        According to your arguement they have this right.
        
        Look at this town as if it were a theater.
        
        You obviously still don't get it!
      - Hocus_Pocus
        
        I don't play the collective card. I believe in the individual.
        
        My argument says that profanity is subjective and can be anything according to the "collective" – I DISAGREE with this.
      - keyboardshark
        
        @Hocus_Pocus
        
        Profanity is not very subjective at all. You and I and everyone else on this site undoubtedly know which four-letter words they are talking about. Also any curse that invokes the name of God or Jesus Christ is obviously included. There aren't that many in total.
        
        Also, you claim that the use of swear words is not a threat. But I can tell you from personal experience that often they are, because they are used in a derogatory manner against another person. It is often accompanied by a physical assault of some kind, like in this video of 'peaceful' Muslims confronting a small group of Christians who were merely displaying signs at an Arab festival in Dearborn, MI:
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/allahu-akbar-shoc…
      - Evermyrtle.
        
        You can tell what a person is by what comes out of his/her mouth, blessings or cursings
      - keyknowsall
        
        "that often they are" – that doesn't mean they always are… why don't you be consistent?
        
        profanity is very subjective, and changes over time. Many modern curse words are rather new to our vocabulary.
        
        Furthermore, you don't have a right to restrict my speech because it offends you..
      - keyboardshark
        
        That is why I used the phrase "that often they are" because it is not true in every case. Where is the inconsistency? If I believed it was true in all cases, I would have said so. I was merely pointing out that there is a connection between profanity and violence or threats.
        
        The vast majority of profanity is not subjective, and we all know the common words that are used, so it is disingenuous to hide behind the "we don't exactly know what they are" excuse. I see nothing wrong with maintaining common standards of decency in public. While you are in private, you can swear all you want, if it will make you feel better.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        Here we go again, criminalizing victimless behavior. Moral Police are here again..
        
        Key, just because you, or a "majority" doesn't like something, doesn't give you the right to enslave others to your liking, by passing laws or regulating their behavior.
        
        It used to be legal for a man to walk naked on his own property. Your sense of freedom is of a current regime that thinks that "standards" apply, even when they don't harm anyone else.. True freedom is consistent. Just because something might, sometimes cause harm, doesn't mean it should then be regulated all of the time..
      - keyboardshark
        
        Use of a single swear word is not "speech". Any thought or opinion that can be formed with the use of cursing can just as easily be articulated without the offending word. So, for example, instead of saying "Down with the f***ing government!" you could just as easily say "Down with the stinking government!" and your message still gets across. Your right to free speech has not been harmed in any way. The idea that you hate the government has still been expressed and no one has suppressed your opinion.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Bull
      - keyboardshark
        
        Bullfeathers
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        So I guess a single swear word can be considered speech.
      - keyboardshark
        
        It could, but as I just demonstrated, there is always a way to express the same thought without using a swear word. You did it yourself with your usage of "bull" instead of "bulls***".
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Bull is considered a swear world.
      - keyboardshark
        
        But it is only a shortened form of bulls***. The word "bull" itself is simply an animal. It's what comes out the posterior end of said animal that is the basis of the swear word.
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        What's your point, any thought can be expressed by sign language. Shall we outlaw speaking also, seeing as though your litmus test is "if it can be formed another way"..
        
        It doesn't matter how it can be formed, it matters how I CHOOSE to express it. You dont' have the right to limit others expression.
      - Eric
        
        "I don't play the collective card. I believe in the individual."
        
        Deep, is that you?
      - Deep_Thinker
        
        No
    - Evermyrtle
      
      This sound like Jeffy. Did he change his name??.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Nope, I am still using my given name. I do not hide.
- Chief
  
  However profanity is infringing on others rights and only demonstrates a persons intelligence.Not being able to express ones self without profanity shows you have a very limited vocabulary and in need of education.I do not use it and will not attend any restaurant or other public place that allows it. My friend that language is definitely invading my rights to common descency and communication.
  - Hocus_Pocus
    
    You have no right of the commons, such as to communication or decency.
    
    If someone is in your home, you have the right to expel them if they speak in a manner you don't like.
    
    You have no right to infringe another or their speech, on someone elses property.
    
    Rights are of the individual. Also, a right is the ability to do or not do something. Take for example, voting. But you can't force people to vote and call it a right.
http://www.divinenewsnetwork.com Min. Thomas Allen

2 Tim. 4:3, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." (KJV)

1 John 4:4-8, "Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." (KJV)
Evermyrtle

Any town has rights to make laws that are according what to the majority wants in their town. If you don like them you are not forced to remain in that town. All Christians dislike anti-GOD speech to be used and have a right to be able to go our and not have to listen to all sorts of profanity and anti-GOD language to be used. The name OF MY SAVIOR , JESUS CHRIST, is illegal in many places and I would like to know what is the difference in these instances.? Well I do know the difference I just want it to be made public. The difference is who makes the complaints, Christian conservatives or anti-GOD liberals. IF Christian emotions do not count, neither do liberal emotions count.
- Hocus_Pocus
  
  "Any town has rights to make laws that are according what to the majority wants in their town. If you don like them you are not forced to remain in that town" – not if they infringe on our natural, God-given, constitutional rights.
  
  Or can a town also pass a slavery law?
  - Windy Willow
    
    Typical Liberal, don't like tha answer so just ask another question.
  - Evermyrtle
    
    I do not believe that GOD had anything to do with writing the Constitution. I have never seen any evidence that leads me to believe any different.
petroskhan1262

I have read most of the comments here, especially the arguments with Hocu_Pocus, and thought I would toss this out there.

The problem, it seems to me, is that people are having a difficult time separating what they WANT from what is LEGAL. Sure, we all want everyone to be polite, to not use foul language around children, or even us adults. But is it LEGAL? Yes, it is.

People have the right to speak in any way they like, as long as it is not presenting a public danger ("fire" shouted in a theater), an obvious threat to someone ("he's got a gun!" shouted at a president's speech), or some similar nonsense. Along those same lines, those offended have a right to complain about it. If it's a public place, they can either leave, or request the person leave, if the one cursing is being offensive to a large group, or disturbing the peace. If in a private place (restaurant, theater, etc.) the owner could be notified that he is about to lose business if he doesn't act on it.

In short, there are remedies available which do not cross the line into attempting to legislate morality. I would love it if we could, but that's simply not the case. People possess free will, and will do with it what they want. More thought needs to be given to what actions are chosen by some, as we are all accountable, and will someday answer for our choices. Just because we have the right to choose whatever we want, doesn't make whatever we want to choose right.

The actions of others are frequently offensive to us. But if you try to make laws limiting such things, will you support laws that limit your actions as well, when someone else finds them offensive? It's a fine line, and I'd rather not go there.
garry williamson

The fact that a town feels the need to legislate decent behavior and manors goes to show the state of our country and the utter lack of respect we have for our fellow Americans.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  That is nothing new. The Puritan's passed many laws regulating excessive rigidity and austerity in matters of law and morality. They had laws against swearing, drunkenness and breaking the Sabbath.
garry williamson

sorry for the typo's old key board
Dave

How many of the people who like this law, pay admission to see Hollywood's profanity laced movies ? Since a lot of them pay Hollywood, one would think that people who cuss should also get paid.
- Evermyrtle
  
  You are likely referring about the wrong crowd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
aceituna

For the last 70 or so years people have lost respect for others. They wish to show off how "mucho" they are and indecent language is one way to do so. They have to "right" to speak as they do in their homes and when they gather with others of their ilk. Have you noticed that some members (sometimes leaders) of your church speak correctly while in church or at a church activity, but if you catch them with their pals they "swear up a blue streak"? That shows the these at least respect the gathering of God's people and can speak without indecent language. It does not excuse them though. The problem today is that most do not respect the "rights" of Christian people to live in an atmosphere of decent discourse. They would force us to live in this type atmophere. They need to be educated or even shunned by the Christian community. Sounds as if we are really in the last times. God will have His way in the end.
Vladimir

I'm all for very limited government, but I also like to walk down the street with my grandchildren. If vulgar and profane language is in use, I'm prevented from venturing out with them. The streets become ruled by the filthy of speech.

Profanity is a weapon of denial. The public places become hostile and uninhabitable for the average citizen trying to raise a family in righteousness. Using profanity is an act that is not necessary for the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness guaranteed under the constitution.

I was so grateful when smoking was outlawed in government buildings. It made my life so much more pleasant in my workplace. Profanity is the cigarette smoke of communication. I for one, side with a penality for using vulgarity in public.
- http://www.divinenewsnetwork.com Min. Thomas Allen
  
  I agree brother…
msjallen

Interesting, I wonder what that town or any other town will legislate against next? I abhor cursing but how about the Word of God being taught in our churches teaching people to apply Bible Doctrine to their lives and in turn parents teaching their children respect for authority and old fashioned curtesy towards others? Any form of government should not have to legislate morality if it is taught in the home. Also, morality is not spirituality only a by-product; unbelievers can be moral. Spirituality is far greater since we get it from Bible Doctrine.
- Vladimir
  
  Msjallen, you said, "Any form of government should not have to legislate morality if it is taught in the home." Civil laws against vulgarity and profanity aren't necessarily aimed at morality, just as laws against public nudity aren't. It has to do with preventing the creation of a hostile environment in public places. That is definitely under the purview of government.
  - vladknowsall
    
    Preventing what MAY become a crime is not a crime.. Get it? Maybe they should lock me up because I MIGHT hurt someone.. – pretty foolish, yet that's what you advocate
    - Vladimir
      
      Not sure you understand what I'm advocating. I'm in favor of civil penalties for disorderly conduct, which includes public displays of vulgarity and profanity. I certainly don't favor criminalization of thinking about doing something wrong.
      - vladknowsall
        
        Disorderly conduct is a subjective tyranny that has no basis for existing.
        
        What one finds disorderly, another might find fine.
        
        "public displays of vulgarity and profanity" – Who is the victim of this crime?
      - Vladimir
        
        The victims of "public displays of vulgarity and profanity" are those who want to walk down a public street with their children without being in a hostile environment. And those who want to raise children in a civil and polite society. And those who mourn the slide of our society into destruction. And those who know history and what has happened to civilizations who did not resist degeneration.
        
        The freedom of speech amendment was necessary to allow the communication of thoughts, arguments and ideas that are vital for a free society to exist. Profanity is superfluous to free speech.
- Evermyrtle.
  
  If we allow anti-GOD this despicable language in our towns and never trying to stop it, means that we are agreeing. Best to plug up this avenue before it gets completely out of control.
  - msjallen
    
    This whole thing smacks of self-righteous legalism that religious people think they have to control everyone's life. Like I said, start teaching Bible Doctrine in our homes and churches and we won't have to legistrate against immorality or any other "hostile" environment in public places as Vladimir says. Do you really think government legislation is going to stop people from cursing or doing anything they want to do? Has it stopped people from smoking, drinking, using drugs, going naked in the streets of SF — this country is out of control because God is no longer in the minds of people with no Bible Doctrine circulating in their soul that they can apply on a daily basis. Heb 4:12 -For the word of God is alive and powerful sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
    - MonitorKrill
      
      James 1:25 "But the one who peers into the perfect law of liberty and fixes his attention there, and does not become a forgetful listener but one who lives it out — he will be blessed in what he does."
    - MonitorKrill
      
      Judges 17:6 "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes."
Carol

Most young people are not taught right from wrong, talking vuglar, wearing pants low, boys wearing ear rings and having long hair, they think is a custom wanting to be different than the last generation, also like tattoos on body. One person, I said to I sure hope those tattoos can be washed off, he said not hardly, doesn't anyone read the bible any more, it says not to mar up your body
. For your body is the temple of God, all you need to do is recognize the Jesus lives within you. You have been given a desire to love our creator, time is short, believe that Jesus came to earth, Jesus sit up his church and died for his church, confess you have sins, be baptized in name of God the Father, the Son Jesus and Holy Spirit then walk with Jesus by reading the bible in do what Jesus tells you to do. Find a church that teaches the bible. Watch, for the devil walks about, looking to see whom he can devour. Even a christian can backslide, lose his candlestick (way) but he can go to Jesus in prayer and ask forgiveness… Do this Sunday or today
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  In every age there are people lamenting the downfall of society. Consider the 1920's.
  
  The most familiar symbol of the “Roaring Twenties” is probably the flapper: a young woman with bobbed hair and short skirts who drank, smoked and said what might be termed “unladylike” things, in addition to being more sexually “free” than previous generations. In reality, most young women in the 1920s did none of these things
  
  Cars gave young people the freedom to go where they pleased and do what they wanted. (Some pundits called them “bedrooms on wheels.”)
  
  Some older people objected to jazz music’s “vulgarity” and “depravity” (and the “moral disasters” it supposedly inspired), but many in the younger generation loved the freedom they felt on the dance floor.
Deep_Thinker

I'm curious, what makes a swear word "wrong"? Because the collective views it as repulsive? So.. That doesn't mean you have the right to impose penalties for others not living within your morality…