Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Oklahoma? (Score 1) 1161

I'm not so sure about your take on the 1st Amendment. It is for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It is just that there cannot be a national religion that is forced upon the populace.


I think it really was going for not forcing a religion no anyone...but, not that any religion could never be spoken about. The mere presence of a mention or investigation into religion is not forcing anything upon anyone isn't like you won't pass a course if you don't convert.

I think there's been some miscommunication.

A common slogan on this topic is "freedom of religion implies freedom from religion". That's because "freedom from" means exactly what you're offering as an alternative--we are not legally required to have a religion and we are protected from religion being imposed against our will.

Comment Re:Hypocritical? (Score 3, Interesting) 676

I think you misunderstand. They remove videos critical of Scientology. I remember seeing one video produced by the "religion" featured on the YouTube homepage.

Featuring such a video does look nearly hypocritical to me. A related problem fresh on my mind is YouTube's habit of suspending good accounts. It looks like most everything is automated, so people need only attract a few malicious trolls to get the boot. With so many people getting suspended and so many videos being pulled under false pretenses, it's just strange to see them taking a stand like this. It's strange to see them paying attention to the content they're hosting.

Slashdot Top Deals

To program is to be.