Christians Sue for Right Not to Tolerate Policies

ZZZzzzzzzz · Apr 21, 2006

What do you mean "promoting gay lifestyles"

You confuse teaching that there are alternative lifestyles, and that there is nothing wrong with them.....as the promoting of alternative lifestyles over traditional lifestyles.

Typical homophobic hysteria from the religious right....

Quote from jem:

You vitrually lectured me about morals yet you know exactly what I am talking about. I agree teach age appropriate information about disease transmission and birth but do not celebrate or promote any lifestyles.

Apparently none of you are aware that in California they were promoting gay lifestyles in sex ed classes. And two dads and two moms. Hey if you got two dads great- just dont tell my kindegartener what to think about it.

---

Stu-- for anyone who even remotely thinks stu is telling the truth please search our thread about the supreme court and their ruling "we are a Christian nation".

stu · Apr 21, 2006

Quote from whitster:

what do you mean by "breeeding grounds". a public campus should not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs, nor does it punish those who exercise that free speech - WITHIN THE PROPER VENUE. our 1st amendment rests upon the principle that a FREE SOCIETY recognizes the right of CITIZENS to make up their own minds about the validity of ideas. it is not the place of govt. to narrow the field of ideas that one can espouse.

So you do make SOME restriction to free speech. Where is VENUE mentioned in the 1st amendment.? Surely your argument must come down to anyone being free to speak anywhere any time, or you will be restricting free speech?. Is that VENUE condition not in fact, a version of censorship ?

Quote from whitster:

obviously, the 1st amendment protection is not an issue if u stand up in the middle of economics class and start spewing about how much you hate (blacks, white, mexicans, japanese, etc.). that is not the proper venue. nor is standing outside somebody's dorm room.

Why not? Why isn't it a restriction under 1st amendment rights? Those are as public places as the quad. The Venue is proper. Who decides what the Proper Venue is anyway? The Principal or the Government or the peoples' right to free speech ?

Quote from whitster:

it's part of what makes our nation great. the right to express controversial and disturbing ideas.

Yes I agree, free speech is that very thing. Not so sure it makes our nation great, to defend the expression of hatred on grounds of race or sex for reasons of free speech.

I expect you have demonstrated the placing of a certain kind of limitation on free speech with your Venue Rule, does the Venue Rule apply to this....

Say a student is successfully indoctrinating impressionable young people to carry out jihad in the name of religion, in hate against Americans on public school campus. He/she incites violence by the freedom of bad speech. Others give another viewpoint by freedom of good speech. But bad speech wins out and many people die over and over as more and more impressionables carry out jihad.

Does the student{s} have the right tof free speech which results in death to come about year after year, campus after campus by it? After all their incitement is "WITHIN THE PROPER VENUE" , so is it ok?

Or would that be subject to 1st amendment protection no matter what?

stu · Apr 21, 2006

Quote from jem:

.....
Stu-- for anyone who even remotely thinks stu is telling the truth please search our thread about the supreme court and their ruling "we are a Christian nation".

Good idea jem, the evidence is right there. You proved nothing else but that you quoted the Supreme Court.

AAAintheBeltway · Apr 21, 2006

Quote from traderNik:

What a fucking joke. For white, straight Christians it did.

AAA, I would nominate you the most myopic ET member... if I didn't believe with every fibre of my being that you are as aware as anyone of the fallacies in your brutal, barbaric views. If there is a reason that America has lost its way, it is exemplified in fundamentalists like you. The real world is screaming by and you guys are unable to cope or adapt. This quoted bit above is just too much to believe.

If you are a successful trader, thank God. It is the perfect business for those of your ilk.

I honestly have no idea what you are so angry about. I'm dealing in facts, not opinions. Clearly the U.S. was governed in a way that you would consider theocratic. Clearly the results were magnificent. For the last 30 or 40 years we have followed a different path. The results have been mixed to say the least.

What is upsetting to conservatives is that liberals have not been satisfied simply to drive any mention of traditional religion out of schools and public life. They also want to substitute their own brand of religion, centered around the homosexual agenda and radical environmentalism.

Why is it so threatening to liberals to have the public schools simply refrain from forcing a controversial concept of morality on children? Isn't it hypocritical to insist that one set of traditional values have no place in school but that another set of supposedly enlightened values should be taught? Why should schools be in the business of deciding these issues?

ZZZzzzzzzz · Apr 21, 2006

Homosexual agenda!

:eek:

Radical environmentalism!

:eek: :eek:

Brand X religion!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I honestly have no idea what you are so angry about. I'm dealing in facts, not opinions. Clearly the U.S. was governed in a way that you would consider theocratic. Clearly the results were magnificent. For the last 30 or 40 years we have followed a different path. The results have been mixed to say the least.

What is upsetting to conservatives is that liberals have not been satisfied simply to drive any mention of traditional religion out of schools and public life. They also want to substitute their own brand of religion, centered around the homosexual agenda and radical environmentalism.

Why is it so threatening to liberals to have the public schools simply refrain from forcing a controversial concept of morality on children? Isn't it hypocritical to insist that one set of traditional values have no place in school but that another set of supposedly enlightened values should be taught? Why should schools be in the business of deciding these issues?

Sparohok · Apr 21, 2006

They also want to substitute their own brand of religion, centered around the homosexual agenda and radical environmentalism.

You have an odd definition of religion.

Why is it so threatening to liberals to have the public schools simply refrain from forcing a controversial concept of morality on children?

The only concept that is being forced on people is this: if they want to discriminate against groups of people, they should do it on their own time and their own dime.

Isn't it hypocritical to insist that one set of traditional values have no place in school but that another set of supposedly enlightened values should be taught?

When one set of values (civil rights) is part of the Constitution, while the other set of values (religion) is specifically excluded from public education by the Constitution, I don't think there's any mystery where this "hypocrisy" comes from.

Martin

jem · Apr 21, 2006

zzz said You confuse teaching that there are alternative lifestyles, and that there is nothing wrong with them.....as the promoting of alternative lifestyles over traditional lifestyles.

apparently zzz does not understand the definition of promoting.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Apr 21, 2006

Teaching anything is promoting, if you want to get technical.....

However, the teaching of alternative lifestyles is simply educating children that there is nothing wrong with alternative lifestyles.

By teaching children that there is nothing wrong with alternative lifestyles, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. and that we are a country built on the concept of acceptance of the rights of others.....we might some day end up with less bigots and religious freaks who want to control the lives of others....

Quote from jem:

zzz said You confuse teaching that there are alternative lifestyles, and that there is nothing wrong with them.....as the promoting of alternative lifestyles over traditional lifestyles.

apparently zzz does not understand the definition of promoting.

FanOfFridays · Apr 21, 2006

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Clearly the results were magnificent.

Oh, clearly. For you.

Look.... I have said many times in these threads that I consider America the greatest country in the world. I have travelled all over the world and people everywhere want to either come to America or they want the things that people in America can have. However, the white middle class is in the process of giving their end of the country away. And in an attempt to stop it, they are becoming....like you.

For the last 30 or 40 years we have followed a different path. The results have been mixed to say the least.

Yes, if you don't like racial minorities.

What is upsetting to conservatives is that liberals have not been satisfied simply to drive any mention of traditional religion out of schools and public life. They also want to substitute their own brand of religion, centered around the homosexual agenda and radical environmentalism.

As I said, I would be angry if I thought you really believed any of this. That is so off the chart as to be ... a joke. The tone of my response is informed by other posts I have seen by you.

Why is it so threatening to liberals to have the public schools simply refrain from forcing a controversial concept of morality on children?

Ah yes, the concept that Christian values aren't the only ones, that one can choose to live one's life in a way other than that prescribed by religious fanatics, that America must live up to its responsibility in terms of its status as 'the land of the free', that blacks and homosexuals should not be tied to trucks and dragged until dead. Those are indeed controversial concepts of morality.

Isn't it hypocritical to insist that one set of traditional values have no place in school but that another set of supposedly enlightened values should be taught?

I know this may be difficult for you to understand, but... the idea is to avoid teaching any one set of values. Believe it or not, the idea that homosexuality is not evil is not part of a particular value system. It is part of a philosophy that attempts to be inclusive to all value systems, where those systems do not condone acts or ideas that are condemned universally. One example of such an act would be the taking of another person's life. Another would be the taking of another persons property by force. A tall order? Very. Do we have a choice, in the America of today? Clearly not.

And before you go off calling me politically correct or suggesting the idea of inclusion is the radical left equivalent of your brand of fundamentalsim, please note

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446670340/002-6637070-1917661?v=glance&n=283155

This book represents my thinking on multi-culti political correctness and the culture of victimization.

maxpi · Apr 21, 2006

Quote from traderNik:

What a fucking joke. For white, straight Christians it did.

AAA, I would nominate you the most myopic ET member... if I didn't believe with every fibre of my being that you are as aware as anyone of the fallacies in your brutal, barbaric views. If there is a reason that America has lost its way, it is exemplified in fundamentalists like you. The real world is screaming by and you guys are unable to cope or adapt. This quoted bit above is just too much to believe.

If you are a successful trader, thank God. It is the perfect business for those of your ilk.

Gee how do you really feel? Nothing like some ranting and name calling from a "superior" intellect.

So far the multi-culturalism/victimcratic left has succeeded in pulling the whites down to where the others lived all along, not raising anybody up at all. Nice job all you intellectually superior morons.