Importance: Individual rights or Majority comfort?

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Super_Geo


So if I were to want to send a message about brutality of rape through some graphic piece of art and decided to put that on my front yard would that be ok? Come on it's for a good cause...

Somehow I see the message reminding society that they are being too commercialized and materialistic around this time of year to be somewhat less severe on the scale as opposed to the "brutal rape art" on the front lawn. Sorry if you can't distinguish that.

[Super_Geo]

Like I said, if you want to remind society of the darker side of materialism, sure... go ahead. But if you're going to display killing someone in the process then you need to have some sensibilties about where you put it. Hence the comparison with the rape art. Cause there are such pieces (saw quite a few graphic pieces while backpacking around Europe in small museams and what not), but those would have no place on a front lawn.

The point is: if I can't show brutal rape art on a front lawn, then who's to draw the line of what is and what isn't permissible? Sure you might be ok with a crucified Santa, but there are others who won't be. Just like: You arn't ok with the brutal rape art, but there will be some who are.

The way I see it, you have an old man who's an attention whore. I actually think that the crucified Santa is pretty clever... putting it out for public display is pretty fucking stupid.

[abyss]

I don't know why you would have to have the "Santa isn't real" discussion with your kids anyways. I would just tell my kids a crazy guy made a stupid scarecrow wearing a santa costume cause he ran out of overalls. Your kids are not going to find out santa doesn't exist from you, they're going to find out from other kids at school anyways. Yeah the art is tasteless, but he didn't add fake blood or anything, it's just a costume on a stick. Why not tell your kids that. Freedom of expression is just that, the guy is a retard, but he is allowed to be a retard (unfortunately), parents will just have to do their job as parents explaining this nut job's "art", choosing whatever means they see fit.

= solution.

besides, kids see much worse stuff on halloween, so if you're concerend about a santa costume hanging on a stick, maybe you should tell your neighbour he can't put plastic corpses on his lawn either cause it's affecting "the children".

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Super_Geo
Like I said, if you want to remind society of the darker side of materialism, sure... go ahead. But if you're going to display killing someone in the process then you need to have some sensibilties about where you put it. Hence the comparison with the rape art. Cause there are such pieces (saw quite a few graphic pieces while backpacking around Europe in small museams and what not), but those would have no place on a front lawn.

The point is: if I can't show brutal rape art on a front lawn, then who's to draw the line of what is and what isn't permissible? Sure you might be ok with a crucified Santa, but there are others who won't be. Just like: You arn't ok with the brutal rape art, but there will be some who are.

The way I see it, you have an old man who's an attention whore. I actually think that the crucified Santa is pretty clever... putting it out for public display is pretty fucking stupid.

Well people put crucified figures of Jesus Christ all over the place, in their homes, their lawns, businesses, ect. It's perfectly accepted for that (all other religious equality debates aside). I personally think it's ridiculous. This is because I'm agnostic, I don't believe in the trials and tribulations that Christ went through for our sins and suffering. However, I recognize that other people do believe in it and this is their way of sending their own message to people. I choose not to accept the message and move on with my life, no harm done.

This guy is trying to send out his message, why can't he be allowed to do the same as all the other christians?

On the other side of this issue, the guy could also say that this figure is actually supposed to represent Jesus Christ and he has just been "covered" in a santa suit to show how much the true meaning of christmas is overshadowed by materialistic stuff like Santa Claus. If he put it that way I'm pretty sure there would be less of an uproar about the issue, cause he'd be talking the same language as all the rest of the bible thumpers.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by hjr
how is santa the same as brutally raped art? it isnt.

I agree. However, it is violent. The question was how far can we push.

Originally posted by hjr

dear go you people speak of sensibilities of society getting offended, im offended that you care so little for your freedom of expression. Im not saying that there is no limit to that freedom, but come on, santa? There is no hate speech here. Hate speech as defined by websters is: a controversial term for speech intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. This does not apply and therefor the rules regarding freedoms of speech relative to hate speech also do not apply. Just because you do not agree with what this person is doing, does not mean that society should have the right to censor him. You are the same people who in the 50's wanted to ban rock and roll music because is supposedly stimulated rebellion and sexual immorality, both against the sensibilities of society.

Also, I personally hate the child argument as well, its like the terrorist argument. Its overplayed and is a fall back for when individuals have nothing better to say. "Its gonna hurt the children!" is just as bad as "your supporting the terrorists", only its been in use much much longer.

i could go on, but i need to sleep.

OK, here are the problems with your arguments, as I see them:
1) Freedom of expression covers anything that has, or attempts to have, a meaning. The sole exception to that is not, as you hypothesis, hate speech. Freedom of expression does not include acts of violence, or threats of violence. I would say a crucified Santa is a pretty violent image in the eyes of a 5 year old.
Now, a violent sculpture isn't the same as direct physical violence, so this guy is only being violent by proxy, but it is violent none-the-less.

In a nutshell, I believe a valid argument can be made (note that I did not say I agreed with it) that this guy is communicating his message through a "violent form of expression". In which case, the sculpture does not fall under the protection of freedom of expression.

2) The right to freedom of expression can be suspended if it's found to impede on "The pursuit of truth, participation of the community, or individual self-fulfillment and human flourishing."
I think a case could be made that this sculpture does frustrate the participation of the community. A very firm argument could be made that it infringes upon the "individual self-fulfillment" of others, most notably, children.

The crux of this clause is that, while technically accurate, it can be interpreted in two ways:
Freedom of expression should be limited to things that promote "The pursuit of truth, etc"-in which case the sculpture is clearly covered by the Charter of Rights.
Or the meaning can be interpreted as I've chosen to do above, by meaning that anything that's seen to infringe upon the "pursuit of truth, etc"-in which case the sculpture would not be protected by the Charter of Rights.

Now, as you can see, a legal case for the suspension of freedom of expression could be argued here. Note that all this information is strictly superficial and based on the Chrter, and not the consequences of the sculpture. The consequences of freedom of expression have been used to have the right refused in the past. In this case, there may be grounds to make that argument, however, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not even going to try.
Also note, that I'm not saying this guy should be forced to remove the sculpture. I'm only saying that there are valid reason for that argument.

Next: Your comparison to banning rock and roll in the 50's does not apply.
Rock and Roll is a commercial venture aimed at teenagers and young adults. It is neither a)violent in nature, nor b) void of meaning. That means it is protected by the freedom of expression.
Because it does not violate any other laws (The Consumer Protection Act, for example) there is no case for banning it.
On the other hand, if you want to compare apples to apples:
If GWAR to come play a concert for a kindegarden class, after school and on public property, that would be different. That would be a commercial venture targeting children under 13 years old. Doing so violates the Consumer Protection Act, and freedom of expression has been suspended in such cases (and in much less extreme cases).

Your comparison between "it's going to hurt the children" and "you're helping the terrorists" doesn't apply here either.

First, no one here is complaining about the message. We all get it, and for the most part, we all pretty much agree with him.
The phrase "You're helping the terrorists" is most often used to acheive some sort of political gain.
To imply we're using kids to push our agendas is a non sequitur. There is no agenda being pushed. The only agenda apparent is that of the sculpturer. If the kids weren't being negatively affected by the sculpture, all opposition would dissapear.
I agree with you that arguing with strawmen (as in the terrorist argument) is dirty pool. However, if the reason you're saying "this is hurting our children" is because it's actually hurting your children, then it's a valid argument.
You're trying to compare a strawman used for political gain with an argument that actually carries substantial merit. That type of reasoning does not follow.
Secondly, arguing a suspension of freedom of expression for the purposes of protecting the content that reaches children is nothing new. This type of ruling has been passed by Canadian courts in the past. Furthurmore, it's been passed based on less graphic and violent content than what we see here.

On a personal note: I believe what this guy is doing is in poor taste. If he wants to put this up in a gallery, great, but not on the bus route to school.
That said, I abhor government intervention into the private doings of it's citizen's, so I can't in all good conscience support legal action forcing the retraction of the sculpture.
Ideally, the sculptor would recognize that there are valid arguments against his rights to do what he's doing, that many people are far more government-dependent and litigious than I, and circumvent any furthur problems by removing or relocating the sculpture on his own.
There's something to be said for respect for your fellow man, even if you're not legally obligated to do so.

Kris

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by Melinda

Well people put crucified figures of Jesus Christ all over the place, in their homes, their lawns, businesses, ect. It's perfectly accepted for that (all other religious equality debates aside). I personally think it's ridiculous. This is because I'm agnostic, I don't believe in the trials and tribulations that Christ went through for our sins and suffering. However, I recognize that other people do believe in it and this is their way of sending their own message to people. I choose not to accept the message and move on with my life, no harm done.

This guy is trying to send out his message, why can't he be allowed to do the same as all the other christians?

On the other side of this issue, the guy could also say that this figure is actually supposed to represent Jesus Christ and he has just been "covered" in a santa suit to show how much the true meaning of christmas is overshadowed by materialistic stuff like Santa Claus. If he put it that way I'm pretty sure there would be less of an uproar about the issue, cause he'd be talking the same language as all the rest of the bible thumpers.

The crucified Santa isn't the equvalent to the crucified Jesus.
Jesus being crucified is part and parcel to the entire Christian belief system. It's a huge and important part of the story.
Santa has nothing to do with crucifiction or violence.
At best, this guy is injecting violence into the fantasies of children.
At worst, he's pushing his religious/moral convictions on those least immune to such attacks on their world view.

Kris

[Cruz]

Originally posted by Super_Geo
The rights of the individual should be respected as long as it doesn't infringe on the sensitivites of the majority.

This guy is obviously a shit disturber. He made his 'art' (the term is used very loosely here), which is fine... if he wanted to put it in a museam all the more power to him. But why would you put that up where the point of it is obviously to thrust it into the face of the public?

Don't like the rampant consumerism during Christmas? Good for him, neither do I. Tell your kids and friends about it, but don't bother me with your bullshit opinions that I don't give a fuck about on my drive home from work. If I wanted to know what your opinion was I'd ask for it.

If I had young kids and that was on any sort of path that they might cross I would burn that thing down in the middle of the night.

And the irony is that you would be the one charged with vandalism, whereas this guy is immune to any prosecution. In fact, he's protected.

[Sprinter]

Originally posted by Melinda
"I agree with certain censorship for the protection of others in cases where people are being hurt or assulted, but taking this thing down wouldn't protect kids."

If you think your kid has the capability to comprehend the symbolism of Santa on a Cross then yes... explain to them the situation... sometimes adults give kids too little credit when it comes to understanding certain things. A kid growing up in different worlds(atmospheres/environments) will age differently (3rd world country vs 1st/2nd world country comparion for example) due to differences in life experiences. I learned about things at a young age myself... most of the time it was at school and I was able to cope with it.

Originally posted by Super_Geo
"The rights of the individual should be respected as long as it doesn't infringe on the sensitivites of the majority."

Generally, IMHO, I would have to say that the symbol SHOULD NOT have been placed in the first place because we are all different. People react differently to things, and you should think of the worst-case scenario, especially when it comes to children. What if that one symbol changes they way the kid see his/her parents, because the kid thinks that what he/she was taught to believe was all a lie... would you want to be the parent of this kid?

[Super_Geo]

Originally posted by Cruz
And the irony is that you would be the one charged with vandalism, whereas this guy is immune to any prosecution. In fact, he's protected.

Wait... what if burning it down was my own form of artistic expression showing the cathartic release of joy that Christmas brings... plus it would keep the bums warm.

[abyss]

Originally posted by Super_Geo


Wait... what if burning it down was my own form of artistic expression showing the cathartic release of joy that Christmas brings... plus it would keep the bums warm.

haha that would be arson. But I'm sure if you wanted to hang your own santa suit on a stick and burn it down then it could be considered art, so long as it's within fire codes and such.

[nonsane]

It's not a big deal. I would just tell my kids that scrooge lived there.

Actually the first thing i would do is ask him to take it down for the sake of the kids. And if he didn't well then he's an asshole, but it is his land, and his entitlement to put stuff up like that.

He is not pushing anything. You don't have to take his message to heart. If you are that worried about people pushing other values on your kids then take them out of school, do not allow them to see friends(As they might have other religious values), etc etc.

Now, by people complaining about it, he has gotten his way. Now instead of affecting those few people now many people are reading that news story. They let him make an influence, and now you'll have to deal with what he'll do for the next holiday.

And finally, How would you feel if you were not allowed to express your passion AGAINST this?
and if you're a business owner, you are not forced to sell say "groceries" to him as long as he has that thing up.

[rage2]

I personally believe that Individual rights far outweight majority comfort. That's how we were raised, and that's the message that the governments told us that's what we were offered. We were taught the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at an early age, we were taught that we have rights to freedoms of expression, freedoms of religion, belief, choice, etc.

Unfortunately, in modern day society, organizations, religious groups, and hell, even parent groups, feel that these rights can be borderline infringed on, because they feel they can dictate whats good for others based on their own beliefs, thus forcibly taking away an individual's personal opinions and beliefs. It sets a dangerous precidence for our society's future.

This guy has exercised his right to Freedom of Expression. Regardless if the majority is pissed off about it, it's a moot point. You can NOT infringe on his right to express his views on the commercialization of christmas. It brings up my favorite saying, "if you don't like what you see, change the fucking channel". In this case, take an alternate route when taking your kids to school if you don't want your kids exposed to it. Or, educate your kids on the meaning of the display. As a parent, it's YOUR responsiblity, not the government's or society, to teach your children values, truth, what's right and wrong. Instead, people want to take the channel off the air, instead of "changing the channel".

To answer TKRIS's original question: Does this guy's "freedom of expression" give him the right to force parents to either change their entire routine, and that of their children, or allow their children to be subjected to subject matter that is far too mature for them?

YES! That's why there's the frickin' Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms... it gives us the freedom to express ourselves even if it's not popular opinion. Back in the day, the majority believed in a lot of things. Slavery, Prohibition, Women's Roles in society. If Majority Comfort was more important than individual rights, we would still have slaves in our homes, beer would be illegal like weed and women would be used primarly for cooking and sex (how cool would that be? ).

Society today has turned us into a bunch of whiney bitches, and forgetting that it's up to us to set what our personal and family values are, not the government's jobs. We've lost many of our freedoms without knowing it. Anti-smoking and the new anti-spitting laws are prime recent examples of us moving backwards. Another good example was when Marilyn Manson (about 10 years ago?) was to hold a concert in Calgary. They were booted out because of parent groups opposing his music. Hey, I'm not a huge Marilyn Manson fan, I wasn't in line to buy a ticket. Change the Channel... don't take it off the air.

Obviously, this guy's opinion on Christmas is not majority opinion, so stuff like this is pretty isolated, and will eventually go away. But because people whine about it, and people like myself defend him because of rights, it gets much more attention than necessary, resulting in an endless increase in publicity. In the end, it completely defeats the original purpose of the whiners... which makes it even funnier because instead of a few hundred people knowing about it, the whole world knows from a national publication.

Hopefully, in the future, we'll see how fucking stupid we were during this generation. Kinda like how we laugh at how stupid the "majority" was, when Rock and Roll was evil and Elvis was the devil playing "nigger music". (For those that didn't know about my reference, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_P...can_culture.22 the section "A danger to American Culture".)

[nadroj23]

I totally agree with Rage2...if you dont like it change the channel....this reminded me of when this man in toronto was trying to get 50 cent banned from canada....Did this guy listen to this music...probably once, did he like it? no. so instead of forgetting about it it decided to see him banned from canada....so what people that like that music suffers because a person who does not doesnt want it here. I dont like country music and the MAJORITY of people i know dont. Should we ban Country music?

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by rage2
I personally believe that Individual rights far outweight majority comfort. That's how we were raised, and that's the message that the governments told us that's what we were offered. We were taught the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms at an early age, we were taught that we have rights to freedoms of expression, freedoms of religion, belief, choice, etc.

Unfortunately, in modern day society, organizations, religious groups, and hell, even parent groups, feel that these rights can be borderline infringed on, because they feel they can dictate whats good for others based on their own beliefs, thus forcibly taking away an individual's personal opinions and beliefs. It sets a dangerous precidence for our society's future.

This guy has exercised his right to Freedom of Expression. Regardless if the majority is pissed off about it, it's a moot point. You can NOT infringe on his right to express his views on the commercialization of christmas. It brings up my favorite saying, "if you don't like what you see, change the fucking channel". In this case, take an alternate route when taking your kids to school if you don't want your kids exposed to it. Or, educate your kids on the meaning of the display. As a parent, it's YOUR responsiblity, not the government's or society, to teach your children values, truth, what's right and wrong. Instead, people want to take the channel off the air, instead of "changing the channel".

To answer TKRIS's original question: Does this guy's "freedom of expression" give him the right to force parents to either change their entire routine, and that of their children, or allow their children to be subjected to subject matter that is far too mature for them?

YES! That's why there's the frickin' Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms... it gives us the freedom to express ourselves even if it's not popular opinion.

I'm pretty sure anyone who's read my posts knows I'm far from being the type who's likely to advocate tiptoeing around other people's feelings.
I can be a dick, and I usually don't much care if I hurt someone's feeling. I'm certainly no bleeding heart hippy that sits around singing kumbayah.

That said, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms puts certain limits on what is eligible for protection under the right to freedom on expression. As I've outlined previously, I believe there are valid arguments as to why this type of display is not covered under the Charter, even though I don't agree with these arguments.
I've also alluded to court decisions where freedom of expression has been supressed. I'll dig up the court transcripts I was reading last night on the subject, if anyone cares to peruse them.

Originally posted by rage2

Back in the day, the majority believed in a lot of things. Slavery, Prohibition, Women's Roles in society. If Majority Comfort was more important than individual rights, we would still have slaves in our homes, beer would be illegal like weed and women would be used primarly for cooking and sex (how cool would that be? ).

Society today has turned us into a bunch of whiney bitches, and forgetting that it's up to us to set what our personal and family values are, not the government's jobs. We've lost many of our freedoms without knowing it. Anti-smoking and the new anti-spitting laws are prime recent examples of us moving backwards. Another good example was when Marilyn Manson (about 10 years ago?) was to hold a concert in Calgary. They were booted out because of parent groups opposing his music. Hey, I'm not a huge Marilyn Manson fan, I wasn't in line to buy a ticket. Change the Channel... don't take it off the air.

Obviously, this guy's opinion on Christmas is not majority opinion, so stuff like this is pretty isolated, and will eventually go away. But because people whine about it, and people like myself defend him because of rights, it gets much more attention than necessary, resulting in an endless increase in publicity. In the end, it completely defeats the original purpose of the whiners... which makes it even funnier because instead of a few hundred people knowing about it, the whole world knows from a national publication.

Hopefully, in the future, we'll see how fucking stupid we were during this generation. Kinda like how we laugh at how stupid the "majority" was, when Rock and Roll was evil and Elvis was the devil playing "nigger music". (For those that didn't know about my reference, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_P...can_culture.22 the section "A danger to American Culture".)

I pretty much agree that there are way too many people walking around with too much time on their hands, and too much sand in their vaginas. The purpose of this thread was more to see why people thought the way they did, as oppose to just finding out how they felt.

That said, I think we'd all agree that, no matter how relevant your message, the freedom of expression does need some sort of limitation. The question is: How extreme of a situation does it need to be before government intervention is acceptable, and who's to be the judge?
Canada has never had, nor ever will have, unregulated, unlimited free speech.

But, here's my plan to test this:

*EDITED in the interests of good taste.

Kris

[rage2]

Originally posted by TKRIS
That said, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms puts certain limits on what is eligible for protection under the right to freedom on expression. As I've outlined previously, I believe there are valid arguments as to why this type of display is not covered under the Charter, even though I don't agree with these arguments.

Im interested in these arguments. AFAIK, the biggest limitation is hate speech, and there's an out there too... if it can be proven to be true, it's not hate speech. I'm pretty sure that Christmas being commercialized is pretty damn true . The rest of the limitations are fairly insignificant.

Originally posted by TKRIS
That said, I think we'd all agree that, no matter how relevant your message, the freedom of expression does need some sort of limitation. The question is: How extreme of a situation does it need to be before government intervention is acceptable, and who's to be the judge?

I'm against limitations based on judgement. That basically gives anyone an out to our basic rights and freedoms. There's way too much objectiveness based on who's in charge based on their PERSONAL beliefs and opinions. Might as well scrap the whole charter and run the country like China if we were to implement a system to allow someone to use their own judgement to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed.

BTW - you shouldn't have edited your post. I liked your idea .

[403Gemini]

whats this deal with "christmas is too commercialized"

you GOTTA be kidding me. I dunno if its just me but ive noticed A LOT of people everywhere haevnt been celebrating half as much as they used too when i was a kid. I remeber i used to go on walks to see christmas lights as a kid. Now i walk down the street and theres MAYBE 1 house with lights?

same with halloween, used to be TONS of kids running around havin a good time and houses were decked out and it was awesome. Now you're lucky if you have a couple dozen kids come to your door.

Ah, how the times have changed i think anybody who says xmas has become more commercial is smoking crack

[rage2]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
whats this deal with "christmas is too commercialized"

you GOTTA be kidding me. I dunno if its just me but ive noticed A LOT of people everywhere haevnt been celebrating half as much as they used too when i was a kid. I remeber i used to go on walks to see christmas lights as a kid. Now i walk down the street and theres MAYBE 1 house with lights?

Ah, how the times have changed i think anybody who says xmas has become more commercial is smoking crack

Uhh, you just explained 1/2 of the commercialization of christmas. No more celebrations, all about buying and receiving gifts.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
whats this deal with "christmas is too commercialized"

you GOTTA be kidding me. I dunno if its just me but ive noticed A LOT of people everywhere haevnt been celebrating half as much as they used too when i was a kid. I remeber i used to go on walks to see christmas lights as a kid. Now i walk down the street and theres MAYBE 1 house with lights?

same with halloween, used to be TONS of kids running around havin a good time and houses were decked out and it was awesome. Now you're lucky if you have a couple dozen kids come to your door.

Ah, how the times have changed i think anybody who says xmas has become more commercial is smoking crack

Unless you live in a neighborhood either very poor and/or filled with mostly Chinese/Indians. There's still a lot of decoration going on.

Energy isn't cheap either compare to good old days. And people actualy have a busier/faster pace life style than before to bother hanging lights and such.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by rage2

Im interested in these arguments. AFAIK, the biggest limitation is hate speech, and there's an out there too... if it can be proven to be true, it's not hate speech. I'm pretty sure that Christmas being commercialized is pretty damn true . The rest of the limitations are fairly insignificant.

In order for it to be protected under freedom of expression is must have a meaning, and not be, promote, or threaten to be, violent.
While it does have a meaning, what is or isn't violent is open to interpretation, and a case could be made that this was violent. Whether or not it'd hold up, I'm not sure. I ain't had me much book learnin', so I'm not going to venture too deep into the intricacies of our legal system.
Also, there are cases where freedom of expression has been suspended, even though they both had a meaning and were none-violent, in the past. I'll post the legal documents I referred to for you later tonight.

Originally posted by rage2

I'm against limitations based on judgement. That basically gives anyone an out to our basic rights and freedoms. There's way too much objectiveness based on who's in charge based on their PERSONAL beliefs and opinions. Might as well scrap the whole charter and run the country like China if we were to implement a system to allow someone to use their own judgement to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed.

I tend to agree. However, everything is based on judgement. Taking the "violent" exclusion as an example: what constitutes violence is subjective to the audience. Something that some people may feel to be violent may not seem at all threatening to others.
I think it could be argued that "majority perception" is a base tenant of our legal system.
To take that a step furthur: If you hold the rights of the individual as paramount, how far can those rights be pushed before it starts infringing on our democratic system?

Originally posted by rage2

BTW - you shouldn't have edited your post. I liked your idea .

I was planning on building the entire structure out of pencil shavings and pasta...

Kris

[tirebob]

Originally posted by TKRIS
[B]

In order for it to be protected under freedom of expression is must have a meaning, and not be, promote, or threaten to be, violent.
While it does have a meaning, what is or isn't violent is open to interpretation, and a case could be made that this was violent.

If this was promotoing or threatening to hang up the 'real' Santa Clause, I could by that arguement, but since it is a fictional Character I don't buy it. If I nailed Fred Flintstone to a cross on my front yard, am I threatening to harm all Cartoon Cavemen? Come on man... All this guy has done is make some people uncomfortable because they don't have the skill to be able to actually parent there own kids, which is a shame as there are going to be a lot more important things to steer their kids around and guide them appropriately through life than this.

Myself, I have no problem tackling difficult issues with my kids, who BTW are 6 and 9 years old. That is my job... If I think something is not right and they ask me about it, I can explain it. I have been hit with a lot tougher stuff than santa on a stick...