Location: Jericho Fan Community

Discussion: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" JerichoReported This is a featured thread

Category: Discussion Forum / General Discussion
Showing 10 posts

tinyfunkmaster
Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Jul 16 2009, 9:47 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 16 2009, 9:47 PM EDT
Just wanted to warn potential fans of the show to not join with the [i]Radio Free Jericho[/i] message board. I joined just this week hoping to share my insights on the implications of issues [i]Jericho[/i] brings up. It's not every day you find something worth talking about on TV. So I joined with [i]Radio Free Jericho[/i] and started posting my thoughts on their site until I made comments on Prop 8. They were respectful and completely in the realm of the debate but the moderator deleted my comment and locked me out of the thread. Then when I tried to reason with them, they cancelled my account. Just a heads up, don't register with them. They obviously didn't learn anything from the show like allowing other people's opinions or thoughts to be heard even if you don't agree with them... Do you find this valuable?    
Dusty'sDemons
Dusty'sDemons
1. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 3 2009, 9:38 AM EDT | Post edited: Oct 3 2009, 9:38 AM EDT
As a long time Jericho Nut. Jericho watcher from the start and friend of a lot of different Jericho groups, I have never found them not open to discussion unless it is so total blown out context. Jericho IS a tv show. The best that has been on the air in years but still a tv show, you can add or subtract what you want. It is not a statement against the USA. It is not against President Bushes term, but I am beginning to wonder about acorn. So if you were expelled maybe they had a good reason. By the way after I leave here I am heading of to find out the real truth about tinyfunkmaster. Do you find this valuable?    
Jim4Jericho
Jim4Jericho
2. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 4 2009, 7:59 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 4 2009, 7:59 PM EDT
My usual home board is at UHD, but I belong to several boards including RFJ. Like Dusty, I've never had any issues there. But if you're talking about Prop 8 in California, that was a real sensitive issue here. You don't mention your views on the subject, and neither will I since I don't think this is the place to do that, but maybe you just touched on a tender spot with the moderator or something. Do you find this valuable?    

tinyfunkmaster
3. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 5 2009, 5:06 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 5 2009, 5:06 PM EDT
I didn't start the discussion on Prop 8. It was already a thread on the board. I read the comments and felt that they were representing only one side of the debate and so I thought I'd weigh in. Contrary to Radio Free Jericho's purported goals of allowing all opinions, they kicked me out of the group. It's just tragic that rational, respectful dialogue is no longer welcome. No wonder our constitutional republic is in such grave danger. Do you find this valuable?    
Dusty'sDemons
Dusty'sDemons
4. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 6 2009, 7:50 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 6 2009, 7:50 PM EDT
"I didn't start the discussion on Prop 8. It was already a thread on the board. I read the comments and felt that they were representing only one side of the debate and so I thought I'd weigh in. Contrary to Radio Free Jericho's purported goals of allowing all opinions, they kicked me out of the group. It's just tragic that rational, respectful dialogue is no longer welcome. No wonder our constitutional republic is in such grave danger. "
1 thing about prop 8 that amuzes me, is that the 1 arguement used most often is that it is legal in many other countries. But ((((unless it has changed in the last year or so))), opponents for gay "marriage" in the USA are the ones pushing for gay marraiges. Other countries do allow same sex couple "marriage" but they do not call it so. It is civil unions or civil contracts. Only in America is the full term marriage. Why not settle on civil contract or unions & not purposely attack people who believe marriage is only between a man & a women. Marriage has always been between a man & woman, let civil contracts, unions so other term be for "gay" couples as "their own special term". It has always seem to me the the "liberal" & person is the more they want to end the rights of others. Do you find this valuable?    
Jim4Jericho
Jim4Jericho
5. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 8 2009, 6:55 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 8 2009, 6:55 PM EDT
I'm with you Dusty. I have no problem with people doing what they need to di in order to be happy. But if society has such a problem with two people of the same sex being "married", then come up with something new and different to call the union. Then nobody can take it away from you. And in the end, its all just a matter of semantics anyway. Do you find this valuable?    
Dusty'sDemons
Dusty'sDemons
6. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 11 2009, 10:18 AM EDT | Post edited: Oct 11 2009, 10:18 AM EDT
Thanks Jim4Jericho. It only makes common sense but that is one factor that is so missing in America or the world today. Do you find this valuable?    

tinyfunkmaster
7. RE: Do NOT Join Radio "Free" Jericho
Oct 11 2009, 11:12 AM EDT | Post edited: Oct 11 2009, 11:12 AM EDT
I'm posting with some trepidation but also with the hope that you two, DustyD and Jim4, are more open-minded than our friends back at RFJ. I agree for the most part with everything you have both said. Marriage has two senses: 1) religious and 2) civic. The government has no business getting involved in religious matters. If two people want to get married then that's their choice. I think the problem we run into is when we start talking about marriage in the civic setting. Why is this a problem? Because then our choices don't just affect us. If we decide as a nation that marriage is the union between two people regardless of sex then what's stopping a person from saying they feel that they want to marry their pet dog or their brother or sister? That's what happens when morality is subjective meaning determined by us and is best exemplified by the statement: "Well, that may be right for you not for me." If this is the case, then we could do anything we want! But as a society we don't believe this. We think homicide, stealing, lying and many other things are objectively wrong. But for some reason it changes when we start talking about sexual morality. This was argument more or less on the RFJ boards. Let me know what you think... Do you find this valuable?    
ratkeeper
ratkeeper
8. Prop 8
Oct 12 2009, 5:33 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 12 2009, 5:33 PM EDT
In my opinion, the problem is with the word "marriage", many people think the word originated in the church and believe that changing marriage is wrong unless the church does it.

If you go back in history, you will find that marriage is a civil ceremony. There was a point in history where the church did NOT marry people. Now since the civil and religious ceremony have the same name, changing it is looked at from the two viewpoints that tinyfunkmaster mentions and as a nation we seem to polarize on the two viewpoints.





 Do you find this valuable?    

tinyfunkmaster
9. RE: Prop 8
Oct 12 2009, 8:26 PM EDT | Post edited: Oct 12 2009, 8:26 PM EDT
I agree with you that what we mean by marriage is the crux of the problem. But I'm pretty sure that marriage was an idea formed in a religious setting. In ancient times, there was no distinction between "civil" and "religious." "Civil society" was tribal and was interwoven with the religious beliefs handed down from generation to generation. It was understood that marriage between a man and a woman ensured the survival and stability of the tribe or nation. The act of procreation is still infused with much mystery and taps into the very question of our origins: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here? It is no wonder then that throughout history marriage has been viewed as religious. Do you find this valuable?