Science censored to please Creationists?

They're not 'modifying speech' to prevent anything. They're choosing which films to show in their private business.
You know. Business decisions. Which film of the choices available to them is most likely to bring in the most viewers for any given area.
(Have you even given a thought to the publicity angle of this whole thing? The theaters are caving to public pressure and theyve decided to show the film in at least one theater that had previously chosen not to. This is going to be the most popular IMAX film in years. It's a publicity stunt.)

So? What does this have to do with the theatres choosing not to show a certain film?

Sigh.
You are so fucking obstinate.
I just said that censorship is generally used in the sense of government censorship. People can censor themselves to their heart's content and there is nothing wrong with that.
A private business can choose which films to show in its theater.
A private bookstore can choose which books to sell on its shelves.
A restaurant can choose which dishes to offer to its patrons.
According to your off-center use of censorship all these things are wrong and the proprietors are guilty of the moral sin of censoring.

No. A film was not chosen to air in a theater.
I have seen no mention of the film being altered in any way.

Why not? If they are in the majority of their area then aren't they the 'public'? Why don't they have the right to educate their children as they see fit?

Your example is inane. Math and evolution are not analogous.

We're not talking about math.
And truth is only what is generally accepted to be true. In an area where it is generally accepted that creationism is true then it is true.

You keep mentioning math. Know why? Because math is an exact science with no ambiuguities about it.

You're the one wanting the government to step in and tell people what to think. I'm not lying about you. I think that you're lying to yourself about yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As a scientist who also reviews "popular science" media you'd find it interesting that science is censored to please everybody.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Bush and co. is responsible for the religious viewpoints of the southern states of the USA then?"

Bush is responsible for his statement that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. Delay is responsible for his statement that the Columbine shootings are due to the teaching of evolution. Many right wing national politicians are guilty of supporting this sort of extreme stupidity.

"Why not?"

Why don't people have the right public schools lie about what science is? Your saying people have the right to use tax money to make students dumber?

"Why don't they have the right to educate their children as they see fit?"

They do. They don't have the right to have public schools lie to students though.

"Math and evolution are not analogous."

In this case they are. Science shows that evolution occurs. To teach otherwise is the equivalent of teaching that 30-7=22.

"And truth is only what is generally accepted to be true."

You don't know what science is......you don't have a clue.

"In an area where it is generally accepted that creationism is true then it is true."

As recently as the 1920's there was a court case about teaching that the earth is flat. Going by your "logic" it's true that the earth is flat if people think that it's flat.

Your "logic" predates the age of enlightenment. Scientific reasoning doesn't go: "if a bunch of people think something is true than it is true". Scientific logic is based on evidence. You're advocating teaching that the earth is flat aren't you? You think that physics students should be able to vote on whether the theory of relativity is true or not.

" Because math is an exact science with no ambiuguities about it."

Going by your own "logic" you're a Nazi.

"You're the one wanting the government to step in and tell people what to think."

It is you that is doing that with your "no ambiuguities".

You're advocating that the government step in and tell people what to think!

Why are you asserting that teaching science is Nazism? You're asserting that if one doesn't teach mythology and call it science one is a Nazi. "In order to be something other than a Nazi one must lie about what science is" according to your "reasoning".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your latest post seems to be just repeating itself. It's a blend of past posts and new ones. Answering none.

This is from an old post.
Again. I'll repeat my previous response to this.
So what? What does this have to do with private businesses choosing which films to show in their theaters?

If that's the will of the people, yes.
If it's the will of the people that creationism is 'true' and worthy of teaching to their children, then yes.
It's called 'democracy'.
Don't like it? Then you want an authoritarian form of government. One that is based on 'making people smart' and 'teaching only scientifically proven facts'.

They're the public.
And it's not lying if they believe it.
It can be wrong and scientifically ignorant, but that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.

In a sense, you're right. Math is only as 'true' as the common agreement between mathematicians on terminology and number theory.

But. Saying that 2+2=4 is not the same as saying that the universe was created in a big bang 16 billion years ago. It's also not the same as the diferent theories of evolution (none of which are whole and complete, by the way.)

You're trying to compare apples and oranges.

And you're obviously ignorant to what I'm saying here. I've said again and again that I personally find creationism to be abhorant. I'm not talking about science here. I'm talking about the right of a people to educate its children how it sees fit as opposed to being forced to submit to the will of a greater government.

Your problem is that you think I'm defending creationism. I'm not. This thread is not about defending or attacking creationism. It's about a business's right to run itself as it sees fit. It's about a people's right to self-determination.

But... you don't have a clue... do you?

Might as well be as far as the topic is concerned. If a people want to teach their children that the universe is a boil on the butt of some diseased space goat from the 10th dimension then that is their right. If the majority of people in a state believe this to be the case, then they have the right to teach it as 'truth' in their public schools (which they pay for with their taxes.) A businessman who believes this to be the case has the right to show films in his theater stating that this is the case and has the right to not show films that deny this to be the case.

This doesn't make it scientific law but 'truth' is only a concept.

Get it through your thick skull. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE. I'M TALKING ABOUT A PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.

Sheesh. You're thick.

How so? By saying that people have the right to self-determination?

Oh. Jesus fucking christ. You're really pushing the limits now aren't you? So. Math is ambiguous then? 2+2 might just be 18 then?

Yes. Higher maths are more complex and certain contradictions start to arise in various aspects but this is besides the fucking point. 2+2=4. End of fucking discussion.

The fuck? Hello. This is Earth calling. Can you hear me?

If a people doesn't want to learn science then a government forcing them to is akin to Nazism. Nazism isn't the proper term. Authoritarianism is better. Totalitarianism. The government is imposing its will on the people instead of the other fucking way around.

A people have a right to be ignorant, cousin-fucking hicks if they want to.
If you impose your will upon them against the will of the majority then you are asserting an authoritarian stance. You are calling for the Nazis.

Get it?

 

"What does this have to do with private businesses choosing which films to show in their theaters?"

My response was to a different question. You're pretending my response was to the question quoted above.

"It's called 'democracy'."

Science has nothing to do with democracy. Math has nothing to do with it either. Going by your "logic" students would vote on whether 50-20=30.

"And it's not lying if they believe it."

People believe lies all the time. When you said "In an area where it is generally accepted that creationism is true then it is true." your logic dictates that Galileo was wrong about the earth revolving around the sun.

You'd have students vote on whether to learn geocentrism? You'd teach that Galileo was wrong?

"It's also not the same as the diferent theories of evolution (none of which are whole and complete, by the way.)"

Evolution says that genetic change over time occurs in DNA based life. Mountains of evidence support this. Evolution is a "fact" in common parlance.

"I'm not talking about science here."

I know. You're talking about voting on whether it can be taught that the earth is round.

"I'm talking about the right of a people to educate its children how it sees fit as opposed to being forced to submit to the will of a greater government."

People do have that right. They don't have the right to have the government teach that Satan is the one true god though and they don't have the right to have the government lie about what science is.

"How so? By saying that people have the right to self-determination?"

You've indicated that self determination doesn't come into play when teaching math. Going by your own "logic" this makes you a Nazi.

"2+2 might just be 18 then?"

If you apply your self determinition logic to the teaching of math than that might be true. You're the one who says that truth is relative.

"The government is imposing its will on the people instead of the other fucking way around."

If you advocate teaching that 2+2=4 you are advocating totalitarianism according to your own "logic".

If you impose your will upon them by teaching 2+2=4 against the will of the majority then you are asserting an authoritarian stance. You are calling for the Nazis.

Get it?

Do you advocate teaching 2+2=4 you filthy Nazi!!

 

What the hell are you talking about? I'm not pretending anything. I'm merely saying that Bush and his gang of cronies are irrelevant to a discussion about private businesses making decisions about which films to air in their theaters.

Keep avoiding the point. Go on. I dare you.

No shit. Really? Wow. You're a bright one. I mean, I've only said this about 4 or 5 times already....
I'm not talking about science.
I'm talking about the right of a people to self-determination. The right of a people to make ther own business decisions in their businesses. The right of a people to decide for themselves what to teach and what not to teach in their schools which they pay for with their tax dollars.

This isn't a complicated issue.
If you'd pull your head out of your ass and realize that I'm not defending creationism then maybe you'd 'get a clue'.

Ever heard the saying, "When in Rome do as the Romans do?"
I'm not dictating shit. I'm not saying Galileo was right or wrong. That is not the topic of discussion. Go on with your strawman bullshit. I dare you.

Students don't vote. Their parents do. College students can vote, but colleges aren't generally run with tax dollars.

And this has nothing to do with what I'd do. Get that through your thick fucking skull. I'd vote to have all these creationist ignoramuses shackled with concrete boots and dumped to the bottom of the fucking ocean. But, I doubt I'd get a majority siding with me on that issue.

Yes. Yes. So what? I'm not disputing evolution.
However, there are multiple theories of how evolution takes place. The particular mechanisms by which life has evolved from nonexistance to its present level of complexity and none of these theories are the whole story.
If they were then there'd be no point to further study, would there? We'd already know it all already. Just like the creationists...
This is off-topic. But then again, this whole topic is off topic.

Now you're getting the idea.

By the way, you've now gone from math to another equally inane example.
Congratulations.

The government doesn't teach. Public schools do. Public schools aren't the government. You're getting confused here.

Also, your example is even more inane than math and the spherical world. You don't think I see what you're trying to do? You're trying to get me to say that it is ok and then you're going to spring the seperation of church and state routine on me.
Right?
Anyway, if enough people vote that they want it taught that Satan is God by the government, then it can be done. The constitution can be amended, you know.

Why don't they have that right? Is it hidden in the constitution somewhere?

Well. Actually if a people wanted to teach that 2+2=5 then it could also be done. But, math is a more... concrete study than evolution. It's more exact. This is why comparing math to evolution is inane.
But, who's to stop a people from voting to teach any stupid thing they want?
That's the perils of democracy for you.

Yup. It depends on agreement. It is generally agreed upon that 2+2=4. Therefore 2+2=4.
Simple stuff, really.

If the wiill of the majority wants 2+2=18 then fine. It equals 18. Let them suffer the consequences. Doesn't make a shit to me. It's their funeral not mine.

You keep thinking that I'm advocating anything. I'm not. The only thing that I'm advocating is the right of a people to self-determination.
Simple as that.


Let's cut the bullshit.

I came into this thread for two reasons.

1.) Because the participants of the thread were happily discussing censorship and government in an issue that has nothing to do with either censorship or government. I wanted to make this point plain and you've happily gone through this thread since my entering either avoiding the issue, throwing out strawman arguments, and continuing to debate the nature of science when science is not the issue.

2.) Because I'm sick of smug little sheep puking up their anti-American rhetoric to the cheers of their fellow sheep. America has it's problems, sure. American government has it's problems, yes. Bush is a fucking numbskull, absolutely. But I'm sick of every argument being diverted to this petty-ass "America sucks" bullshit. This is a topic about private business and business decisions. To start spouting anti-government bullshit is off topic. But it's so deliciously ironic that the 'anti-government' rhetoric is actually calling for more government.

Anyway.
The issue is this.
Several theaters in the Southern United States have declined to show a film supposedly because it mentions evolution.
Do they have a right to choose which films to show in their theaters or should they be mandated to show films whether they want to or not?

 

Bush is responsible for his statement that Creationism is a valid scientific theory. Delay is responsible for his statement that the Columbine shootings are due to the teaching of evolution. Many right wing national politicians are guilty of supporting this sort of extreme stupidity.

Keep avoiding the point. Go on. I dare you.

"The right of a people to decide for themselves what to teach and what not to teach in their schools which they pay for with their tax dollars. This isn't a complicated issue."

Of course it's a complicated issue. It gets at whether the majority has a right to dictate their religious (and other views) to the minority. You're saying that if most of my neighbors are stupid enough to think that the earth is flat than my kids must be taught that the earth is flat.

"I'm not saying Galileo was right or wrong."

I know. You're saying that whether the earth revolves around the sun or not depends on the whether the majority thinks so. Science has nothing to do with the opinion of the majority.

"Students don't vote"

You are quite the Nazi. Why should the school be allowed to impose it's will on students? I can't believe that you think that schools should be allowed to tell students that 2+2=4 if the students don't agree.

"Public schools aren't the government."

Public schools are part of government. You're getting confused here.

"Actually if a people wanted to teach that 2+2=5 then it could also be done."

You think that 2+2=4 should be taught as something that people agree on rather than because it is inherently true. You're advocating that we become a nation of complete idiots.

"This is why comparing math to evolution is inane."

Not in this case. Teaching 2+2=4 is based on known math. Teaching that evolution (genetic change over time) occurs is based on known science. They should both be taught as truth for the same reasons....they are both clearly true.

"If the wiill of the majority wants 2+2=18 then fine. It equals 18. Let them suffer the consequences. Doesn't make a shit to me. It's their funeral not mine."

You don't care if America because a nation of complete morons.

"Because I'm sick of smug little sheep puking up their anti-American rhetoric to the cheers of their fellow sheep."

I am not anti-American or a sheep. I'm against blatant stupidity being put forth by powerful people who know better. A stupid America is a weak America.

"Do they have a right to choose which films to show in their theaters or should they be mandated to show films whether they want to or not?"

Of course they have the right to censor the movie. Nobody has said they don't have the right. The point is that it's sad that there are so many morons running around that they feel the need to censor the volcano movie in order not to offend the aforementioned hoards of morons.

It's also sad that our leaders are encouraging Americans to be complete imbiciles. I hope for something better than that from our leaders.

 

"A private business can choose which films to show in its theater.
A private bookstore can choose which books to sell on its shelves.
A restaurant can choose which dishes to offer to its patrons."

"Of course they have the right to censor the movie. Nobody has said they don't have the right. The point is that it's sad that there are so many morons running around that they feel the need to censor the volcano movie in order not to offend the aforementioned hoards of morons."


so you both agree.,yey!apart from the word censor.

censor - one empowered to judge the fitness of manuscripts,communications.

this is more supply and demand then censorship.

 

Bah. Damn you. I quickly read your post before getting something to eat and I saw that you called me stupid. I was going to elevate the name calling but you've gone and deleted it. Asshole.

Your debate style is interesting to say the least.

I'm avoiding the point? I've already stated that Bush is fucking numbskull. So what? What does that have to do with the topic?

It's too bad that signatures are disabled. You could make that paragraph your signature. It so... you. The quintessential Throckmorton.

No. It's not really complicated.
If the majority of your neighbors are stupid enough to believe that the earth is flat and they then vote to have this taught as curriculum in the public schools and you don't agree then you're fucked. Pure and simple.
Move to a location where people agree with you.
Either that or develop a platform from which you can convince your neighbors to change their views.

Listen closely.
I'm not saying a goddamned thing about science. This topic has nothing to do with how science operates.
Ok?
Will you now stop with your strawman? Somehow I doubt it.

And your a fucking thickskull.
The curriculum is voted on by the fucking people.
The parents either elect a school board who can decide such matters or vote directly on certain issues.
It's called democracy.

Public schools are run by the governemnt. Public schools do not in themselves govern.

Again with your example of math.
I've already stated unequivocably that it is not analogous to evolution.
Thick.Fucking.Skull.

If the majority of the people in a majority vote in such a way that the nation is to be shaped as a nation of idiots then that is the perils of democracy[/i

Sigh.
You're the boil on that diseased goat's ass. You know that?

Here. I'll give you a more relevant example.
String theory.
String theory and evolution are analogous.
Why? Because while evolution at its simplest is 'change over time' it is the mechanisms of evolution that are in dispute. Abiogenesis for example. As of now there is no valid explanation for how life began. There are also various other areas of evolutionary theory that is rife with contradictions and flaws. Imperfect understanding.

But. Again. It's off fucking topic. If a people don't want evolution, string theory, or horticulture in their schools then they have that right.

America will never become a nation of complete morons. The southern states of the United States are another story.

America is not a homogenous unity.

But you are smug?

Anyway, so what? What does this have to do with private businesses choosing not to show a film in their theater?

It's not censored. A business must make business decisions. Which films to show. Which books to sell. Which dishes to offer.

Is it censorship when I can't get a hamburger at a french restaurant?

Yes it is sad.
But what does that have to do with the topic?

 

Exactly.
Finally someone has seen the light.

Thank you, Kenworth.

 

edit:actually.,its not that important.

 

A private movie business that decides not to show a movie because it may offend patrons does so because it likes money, not because of el Presidente. In fact, I think our president reflects popular mentality at this time more than anything else. Changing the movie fair for your patrons is the same thing.

 

"I saw that you called me stupid."

I should not have done that. You haven't said anything to deserve that. I appologize. I'm always prepared to defend or retract anything I say.

"If the majority of your neighbors are stupid enough to believe that the earth is flat and they then vote to have this taught as curriculum in the public schools and you don't agree then you're fucked."

You're saying that teaching obvious truths shouldn't be permitted if the majority doesn't go for it. Your "logic" prevents teaching science. Your "logic" prevents educating children. You think that schools should be in the business of making people dumber.

"I'm not saying a goddamned thing about science."

You are. You are saying that the majority opinion should prevail when it conflicts with known science. You don't believe in teaching science. You only believe in teaching the prevailing opinion.

"I've already stated unequivocably that it is not analogous to evolution."

I've stated otherwise. Unlike you I've provided evidence for my assertion.

"I've already stated unequivocably that it is not analogous to evolution."

I think that there is far more evidence for genetic change over time (evolution) than for string theory. I don't know enough about string theory to be certain of this.

"the mechanisms of evolution that are in dispute."

As is the mechanism of gravity. The fact that evolution (genetic change over time) occurs is not in dispute. There is irrefutable evidence that genetic change over time occurs.

"America will never become a nation of complete morons."

If people believe that scientific truth is based on opinion polls it will be.

"But you are smug?"

No more than you are I think.

"But what does that have to do with the topic?"

Our leaders encourage this sort of stupidity. They empower people to be stupid.

 

Alright. This is my last post in here today.

No need to apologize.

That's democracy for you. What can you do?
The founding fathers foresaw this, you realize. That is why we're not actually a full democracy but rather a representational republic. But, even so, when the majority of people are idiots and they elect representatives that are equally idiotic the results are still the same.

You got a better system?
A benign dictatorship perhaps? Let's make Stephen Hawking our king. A nerdocracy.

Teaching science is not science itself. Scientific research does take place at the college level; but, again, most colleges aren't state run.

Hey. It sucks. I know. But them's the breaks.
Authoritarianism has its appeal and I won't deny it. But it has more flaws than benefits. Democracy, for all its perils, is still the best government to date.

We're going to have to disagree on this. Math is a subject that is far more agreed upon and obvious than is evolution.

Evolution is more than 'genetic change over time'. If you taught evolution as 'genetic change over time' then the class would be pretty short and to the point, wouldn't it? The dispute, as I've said, is over mechanisms.

But it doesn't explain how evolution reached the stage that it has. Gravity is apparent in the world. Evolution is also equally apparent as 'change over time'. But, explaining the Cambrian Explosion and abiogenesis is another matter.

We've even seen a few examples of speciation taking place which further puts a nail in the creationist coffin, but there are still large areas of the theory that are needful to be filled in.

By the way, notice how you switch from a math analogy to a physics analogy? Why? Because you can't think of an unknown mechanism example in simple math?

"We don't know how 2+2=4. We just know it does..."
See?

Be that as it may, the nation as a whole is not homogenous unity.
There will be stupid people.
There will be not so stupid people.
Areas of the country are victim to rampant ignorance while other areas are more 'enlightened'.
It's the way of things.

The USA is not any one thing. Nor will it ever be.

Touche.

And they are also empowered by the people to be stupid.
It works both ways. This is another peril of democracy.


Anyway. All bullshit aside. I think that we see eye to eye on the state of science. I am no creationist. I agree with evolution. I think that it requires more study and with the wonders being carried out in genetic and epigenetic research we are getting more and more of them, but there are and always will be unanswered questions in the field. It will always have areas of controversy. And there will always be ignorant fools who will deny the nose on their face.

This is humanity.
And democracy is humanity empowered.

Thus is the situation.

 

"The founding fathers foresaw this, you realize."

Perhaps. Our founding fathers were a product of the enlightment and thus believed in reasoning. They were against supression of truth due to religious thinking.

"You got a better system?"

No. I don't think our system mandates that religion takes precidence over science in education.

"Authoritarianism has its appeal and I won't deny it."

I'm in favor of Democracy. Teaching the truth about science is appropriate in a Democracy just as teaching math is.

"Math is a subject that is far more agreed upon and obvious than is evolution."

It was agreed that the earth is flat and the the sun revolves around the earth. Those ideas aren't any more true because people agreed on them.

"Evolution is more than 'genetic change over time'."

The theory of evolution states that genetic change over time occurs.

"If you taught evolution as 'genetic change over time' then the class would be pretty short and to the point, wouldn't it?"

I took a course in evolution. It was all math....gene frequency equations and whatnot. Calculus was a prerequisite. I can assure you that studying evolution as genetic change over time isn't a short study.

"But it doesn't explain how evolution reached the stage that it has."

Neither does physics explain how gravity occurs. There is a whole lot in all sciences that isn't understood.

"Because you can't think of an unknown mechanism example in simple math?"

I don't have much of a clue about what mechanisms in math are truly understood. I had a couple of semesters of calculus but understanding of that sort of thing wasn't required.

"We don't know how 2+2=4. We just know it does..."

From what little I understand I assume that is true. Bertrand Russel wrote some 64 pages justifying 2+2=4 in a treatise on mathmatics. It's said that he lost a fair amount of thinking ability after writing the treatise.

"And they are also empowered by the people to be stupid."

That's true. The guys we have now seem to work at staying far ahead of run of the mill stupidity though. Saying that the Columbine killings were due to teaching evolution is far more stupid than the average idiot expects of a leader if you see what I'm saying.

This has been an interesting discussion?

 

Maybe scientists should attempt to compromise with the creationists and Intelligent design people.

Let them put editorial comments in biology texts. Let scientists put editorial comments in Sunday Schoool lessons. LIke pointing out how certain biblical stories are contrary to the laws of physics.

It would be fun to put remarks in the Bible about the views of modern science.

 

ThrockMorton,

Ok. I lied.
One last.

One.) You're a stubborn bastard. And that's the truth.

Two.) You keep trying to make me argue for beliefs I don't hold. I.e. flat earth, creationism, the Earth as the center of the universe, etc... The point I am making is that people are entitled to believe what they want to believe and to raise their children in any manner they see fit. Just because you don't agree with them and just because the weight of modern science is against them doesn't mean that you, in a democracy, have the right to put your views over another if you are in the minority.

Three.) The discussion has gone in circles and circles but the point underlying the whole, the point to which you even agree although you don't want to agree, is that private business is entitled to make its own business decisions. To mandate that a business should show a film against its will is not democracy.

Four.) Apples aren't oranges.

Five.) The decision by the private businesses on which films to show is not a right-wing conspiracy. Bush is not responsible for it.

Sigh.
Jesus christ.
Why am I even bothering to try.
If the population of a state choose not to teach the 'truth' about science then that means that it won't be taught. A people have a right to self-determination and this includes the right to be ignorant.
So. In this case, teaching science and democracy do not mix.
If the majority of the population choose not to be taught science and the minority imposes its will to teach science on the majority then it is no longer a democracy. It has become authoritarian.
Will you just admit it? It's a simple concept that you are refusing to accept even though you goddamn know it's the truth.

It doesn't matter what is true. It doesn't matter what is scientifically proven. We're dealing with a people's right to self-determination.

 

James,

Children don't have that right in a democracy, do they? If they did, then they'd be able to vote. Instead, they are instead under the care of a parent or a guardian. The parent or guardian makes the decisions for the benefit of the child.

(If my nephews had the right of self-determination, they'd be playing video games and eating candy their whole lives.)


Take a case in point.
The Amish.
If withholding science from them was seen as harmful and causing suffering then shouldn't their children be taken away by the state and the parents imprisoned for child abuse?


What if a child were educated in a manner that made him different from his parents? Wouldn't this, in fact, cause him harm? In an extreme example wouldn't this make him an outcast by his own people?

 

People, People.

Nexus has made an excellent point here, but let me add to it.

This is f*cking BRILLIANT marketing ! Think about it. "Banned in the south", "the movie the Fundies don't want you to see". Pretty soon, people from down in the south will DEMAND this move be shown. Those who aren;t fundies will support it, and others will go anyway, just to see it. And in every other place in the USA, people will flock to this movie to see what this is all about ! (Provided they get enough coverage and cen generate enough publicity)

This is what we call in the USA brilliant marketing.

In the town where I live, a "gentlemen's club" sprang up, and just when it ws almost out of business, the local Baptist church pounced on them and picketed and complained to citiy officials etc.

Well, hte publicity made them into what they are today, the most popular gentlemen's club in the southern part of the state ! And when the Baptists got their liquior license pulled, they went to totally nude dancers ! When the Baptist made an agreement to help them get their liquoir license back (in exchange for going back to "not" nude, that club challenged the law in court (about serving alcohol with no nudity, why?). The publicity skyrockted, and (you guessed it) more popular than ever !

I had often wondered if the local Baptist preacher actually owned an interest in the club.

brilliant !