Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

[acronym]

Quote from jem:

teaching sex in public schools-- What an innocuous way of describing what the agenda really is?

If it were only the sex ed that taught children about how children are made and how they can avoid diseases and preganancies including birth control and abstinence, the subject would be less controversial. Perhaps still controvesial because there is the argument that parents should be the ones educating but ...

The courses that have made the press have started to teach alternative lifestyles, tolerance and value judgments about those life styles. I see no place for that type of moral indoctrination in public schools. Why would radical agendas be o.k. and not conservative teachings. Is it not better to just leave morals to the parents?

You are clearly deluded.
PLEASE tell us, what the real agenda is..............

Quite frankly, if they showed more of those army videos, that would be more effective than anything.

Moral indoctrination? Upon what, is your assessment based??Dont tell me -some kind of "moral indoctrination"?

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

Sure AAA.

And the right wing Christians don't hate Muslims extremists either.....

They love and forgive the Muslims for their sins.....

No doubt in Christian churches all throughout the red states, they take time to pray for the redemption of the sins of the Muslims just like they pray for the redemption and forgiveness of the "sins" of homosexuals.....

p.s. There is no debate when it comes to sin, as people determine sin not by secular reasoning, but by indoctrination into a belief system that defines sin according to scriptures.

That is why they call it fundamentalism, just like the right wingers are fundamentalists in the same way fundamentalist Muslims, or fundamentalist Jews, etc. are unyielding or open to debate on what is considered right and wrong when it comes to morality.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

zzz,

I fail to see how whether one is in the majority or minority is relevant to the exercise of a basic First Amendment right. In fact, I'm relatively sure these oppressed Christians are not in the majority on their campus. It's precisely because their opinions are rejected by the majority that they require constitutional protection. You don't need the First Amendment to voice an opinion everyone agrees with.

There is not a constitutional right to avoid being offended or having one's feelings hurt. It is only a PC law, enacted by the PC facists who control universities to prevent rational discussion of issues. In Orwellian fashion, they define dissenting opinion as hate speech or discrimination, even though it is in fact constitutionally protected religious expression. This is a variation of the left's typical tactic to avoid debate of issues on which the public disagrees with them. Opposition to race quotas becomes racism, opposition to illegal immigration becomes xenophobia, moral reservations about the radical homosexual agenda beome homophobia.

Christians do not hate homosexuals, any more than they hate other people who engage in other sinful conduct. It's the conduct that is objectionable, not the person. The person always has Salvation open to them.

 

[Burtakus]

Quote from acronym:

Burtakus;
"Hate filled stupidity is not the point of religious organizations and if given any chance only a small percentage would turn to terrorism. All religions have a track record (past and current) of dubious acts in the name of said religion which is usually perpetrated by a small radical minority trying to force their morals and beliefs on other "non belivers".


Ok, so what happens when you provide a small minority, much less a big, stupid one, the opportunity to influence the rest in such a manner as to acheive precisely the same results.
Murder , torture, genocide, much less warfare, mass murder, are very far from "dubious".

They didnt force anything, the mob mentality religion breeds has always been the stumbling block to human development.

Are you suggesting we incarcerate people based on their words just because we do not like what they are saying?

The mob mentality does not require religion. That is not to say that religion cannot foster a mob mentality.

 

[Burtakus]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Sure AAA.

And the right wing Christians don't hate Muslims extremists either.....

They love and forgive the Muslims for their sins.....

No doubt in Christian churches all throughout the red states, they take time to pray for the redemption of the sins of the Muslims just like they pray for the redemption and forgiveness of the "sins" of homosexuals.....

You should take a trip away from the left coast and live amongst the Christian (and not so Christian) red staters. You might be suprised what you learn.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

ET is a fine example of the level of acceptance of gays, muslims, etc. by the "Christian" conservatives....

Quote from Burtakus:

You should take a trip away from the left coast and live amongst the Christian (and not so Christian) red staters. You might be suprised what you learn.

 

[acronym]

Quote from Burtakus:

Are you suggesting we incarcerate people based on their words just because we do not like what they are saying?

The mob mentality does not require religion. That is not to say that religion cannot foster a mob mentality.

Incarcerate? Im against the idea on principle, because its based on twisted precepts of religion.

I hate to have to bring this to your attention, but that is precisely the precept of murderous racism, homophobia, the very concept of national treason and the rest of this god-forsaken bullocks has been based on, for thousands of years.

Jem should know much better, based on historical case law than to even suggest any kind of scholarchip SHOULD be applicable, given most of the people murdered by the state in days gone by, and its still occuring, ISNT EVEN IN THE BOOKS.

Forgotten, as accidents of history, "well thats what they did back then, not our concern 'cause it dont happen now"
well, bullshit.

Alas, hes a lawyer, and relies on these books to determine his own common sense.

 

[whitster]

"p.s. There is no debate when it comes to sin, as people determine sin not by secular reasoning, but by indoctrination into a belief system that defines sin according to scriptures."

you really have no clue. i am not saying that as an insult, it just is so amazingly obvious.

do you have ANY knowledge of the history of religion? the great philosophers (religious or not)?

to actually state there is "no debate?" lol

the jesuits, the benedictine, the orthodox jewish tradition, blah blah blah

you have this incredibly narrow and bigoted view of religion. your prejudice is just amazing

if you really believe this narrow stereotypical bigoted rubbish you type i feel sorry for you. your world is so narrow, so cold, and so detached from the reality of how people actually live their lives.

it is very sad.

"no debate".

possibly the dumbest comment i have ever read about religion in general, and sin in particular

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

If you consider faithful religious people pointing to their scripture and having different opinions on what that scripture means to them a "debate".... then you are the one who needs to be felt sorry for.....

The faithful don't debate scriptures, scriptures are not the subject of debate, they are the subject of faith, and they are to be practiced with faith in them....and the intellectuals who debate scriptural sin on the basis of their intellect, not faith, are not truly religious people. They are what the Bible refers to as hypocrites, as they are placing their own limited intellect above faith in their scriptures they are "debating."

Too many people enage in so called debates on scriptural sin, as a means of self reinforcement, as they have no genuine faith in their own scriptures.

A debate process follows logical rules.

Those who do debate in the name of their religious faith as to what is sin.....especially for what is sin for anyone but themselves, are fully being duplicitous....as faith is not a logical process.

There simply is no genuine debate when the foundation of a conclusion is religious faith, there is only war....or live and let live, as we have seen throughout the annals of history when it comes to religions.

The fundamentalist Christians who think homosexuality is a sin are not going to change their view as a result of a debate, as their opinion is fixed on a fundamentalist view and faith in scriptures, not a conclusion born of a secular reasoning process.

There is no debate.....

There is only faith, and that rational loving faith is seen in the good Christians, those who truly follow the path of Christ, in their lack of judgment of the sins of others, and have nothing but acceptance and love for their fellow man.....

Quote from whitster:

"p.s. There is no debate when it comes to sin, as people determine sin not by secular reasoning, but by indoctrination into a belief system that defines sin according to scriptures."

you really have no clue. i am not saying that as an insult, it just is so amazingly obvious.

do you have ANY knowledge of the history of religion? the great philosophers (religious or not)?

to actually state there is "no debate?" lol

the jesuits, the benedictine, the orthodox jewish tradition, blah blah blah

you have this incredibly narrow and bigoted view of religion. your prejudice is just amazing

if you really believe this narrow stereotypical bigoted rubbish you type i feel sorry for you. your world is so narrow, so cold, and so detached from the reality of how people actually live their lives.

it is very sad.

"no debate".

possibly the dumbest comment i have ever read about religion in general, and sin in particular

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from whitster:

"p.s. There is no debate when it comes to sin, as people determine sin not by secular reasoning, but by indoctrination into a belief system that defines sin according to scriptures."

you really have no clue. i am not saying that as an insult, it just is so amazingly obvious.

do you have ANY knowledge of the history of religion? the great philosophers (religious or not)?

to actually state there is "no debate?" lol

the jesuits, the benedictine, the orthodox jewish tradition, blah blah blah

you have this incredibly narrow and bigoted view of religion. your prejudice is just amazing

if you really believe this narrow stereotypical bigoted rubbish you type i feel sorry for you. your world is so narrow, so cold, and so detached from the reality of how people actually live their lives.

it is very sad.

"no debate".

possibly the dumbest comment i have ever read about religion in general, and sin in particular

================
Noticed that pattern also;
''possible the dumbest comment I have ever read about religion and sin in particular''


And that was mighty convenient for some to simply dwell on the love of God;
however more to it than that

 

[saxon]

*yawn*