Gay rights supporter shoots up FRC because they are a "hate" group.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Are the account time periods between that sicko and stu non-overlapping?
He could always covert and become a mudslime , I mean muslim.
I still can't quite fathom how some believers, in the God sense, can be so hateful of others who have the same exact beliefs. All the God stories are similar, all of the holy books are very similar, even to the point of many similar to Jesus, dying for mankind, resurrection and all that. But, because one is Hindu, Muslim, Pentecostal, Catholic, born again, and many others.
Evidently, the teachings of these books are being totally disregarded.
In my Religious History classes, of which I found very interesting, we learned about similarities and differences in the various sects. I learned to respect them all, but chose to not become a member of any. I can keep my mind open, rather than having to be shackled to one belief system or another. Really helps me when I get into the philosophical mode.
We have those who are hated, even repulsed by the Christian bible, here trying to defend those same people who are sickened by their so called lifestyle. I say they have no choice, this is who they are. Designed that way by their God, or even those who actually choose those lifestyles. I say Who cares what people do in their bedrooms.
These same people argue for smaller government, yet want the Social Conservatives to take offices that restrict our freedom. Gov't should be smaller, especially when it comes to our sexual activities, religious thinking, and other mind controls.
Evidently, the teachings of these books are being totally disregarded.
In my Religious History classes, of which I found very interesting, we learned about similarities and differences in the various sects. I learned to respect them all, but chose to not become a member of any. I can keep my mind open, rather than having to be shackled to one belief system or another. Really helps me when I get into the philosophical mode.
We have those who are hated, even repulsed by the Christian bible, here trying to defend those same people who are sickened by their so called lifestyle. I say they have no choice, this is who they are. Designed that way by their God, or even those who actually choose those lifestyles. I say Who cares what people do in their bedrooms.
These same people argue for smaller government, yet want the Social Conservatives to take offices that restrict our freedom. Gov't should be smaller, especially when it comes to our sexual activities, religious thinking, and other mind controls.
I can't quite fathom why you think this discussion is a disagreement between believers?
What a fricken moron!
He spends too much time with Luke.
==========
Good points;
kidnapping in old testament had death penalty also
{Not an automatic deal]1) As I've already explained two or three times, it doesn't matter if you said ILLEGAL, i simply used that thread as an example to Free thinker off the top of my head to make a point in this thread.
You DID imply/state for a fact that the school shouldn't be allowed to do what it did.. don't lie stu.
what are you saying right here stewie? To me it appears you are saying that the catholic school SHOULD NOT have been able to call that assembly.
Well they can mandate them stu, and they can state their beliefs whether they are offensive or not, at their school. And who is really the one sensationalizing and exaggerating what happened? They didn't abuse anyone, they stated their position, and it wasn't personal. Aren't the students also obligated to hear the church out (not saying they can't disagree appropriately).. seeing as they attend their school and all?
Now for the semantics. Here is the source of our disagreement in this thread, what is and isn't tolerant. I read this somewhere but I'm probably not reproducing it verbatim.. here is the way I view the it:
tolerant: acknowledging that every legal citizen of legal age, and every private establishment are afforded the same exact Constitutional rights which you are.
intolerant: any action, attempted action, or threat made to undermine or deny any or all of the aforementioned rights.
i'll give you some examples.
A bar owner sees a group of young men walk in with shaved heads and various nazi tattoos and assumes they are skin heads.. he tells them to leave. Is he being intolerant? In my opinion NO, they are on his property and as the property owner he can allow whoever he wishes. Judging by your posts you would have to consider this intolerant because since the bar is open to the public, he is discriminating. But what rights of theirs is the owner violating, they don't have a right to be on HIS property.
An atheist walks into a Jewish Temple and attempts to disrupt prayer, by shouting down the rabbi. he is being intolerant because he is attempting to undermine their rights, on their property.
A married couple has plans to go out for the night and are looking for a babysitter. They meet a black guy and a white girl, they hire the white girl and tell the black guy it is because they don't trust black people. lol are they being intolerant. i don't think so, their kid, their decision.
The state of California decides to pass a law increasing taxes on only Mexican Americans, is that intolerant. it is, because the legislative body is legalizing inequality, an obvious violation of the 14th Amendment.
A public golf course refuses to allow a group of women onto the course, intolerant? yes because public property belongs to the community and the public cannot distinguish or discriminate between legal citizens of legal age without being intolerant to other legal citizens of legal age.
If you think about this a bit, I bet it will make sense. you can't tell a private establishment, like the bar in my first example, that he can't discriminate without violating his rights. however a govt, because they write the laws, can't discriminate without violating someone's rights. So I don't see how the Church's views can be considered intolerant at their own school. they weren't taking away anyone's rights or threatening to.. they were just stating their beliefs.
Like I said this is the way I view things, and I'm pretty sure I am consistent in it.
Thats like saying you cant fathom how Cain could kill Abel because they had the same mother and father.
Muslims hate us the way Cain hated Abel because God favored Abels offering more than his.
Generally speaking other people/religions will hate the people who God favors most which is currently the Jews and the Christians.
Those people do not even have to be religious to hate the ones that God favors more than them. Look at Atheists. They hate Jews/Christians because they know we are the most favored. They never say anything about hindus, muslims or the many voodoo african religions because in their soul, they know God has no favor towards them.
Everyone hates the teachers pet, in other words.
made
The school is an entity. It is controlled by its owners/executive. School governor's, making decisions on how the school will be run. What will be allowed what will not be allowed.
It now seems the school will not be allowed to make what is tantamount to hate speech in assembly by employees or visiting catholic guests or anyone else for that matter. The school no longer is being allowed to do what it did.
No need or mention of the word illegal.
Furthermore it is blatantly obvious your idea that objecting to discriminating speech is an attempt to restrict free speech, is completely silly.
Same as I say above. No more no less, it is quite clear. Better had you cared to enquire earlier instead of jumping to your own false conclusions.
Let me try again.
Nothing to do with free speech, nothing to do with illegality. You bringing those and other issues like - it's a private school so they can say what they want - is not the point. It never was. Those are red herrings.
A church school made discriminating hate speech, and directed some of it personally against some of its pupils. That is the point.
Hate speech, especially in a learning environment where children are obliged to attend, is never okay.
That's it. The school shouldn't allow it. Their governors shouldn't have allowed it. That type of verbal abuse shouldn't be allowed in school.
The school's own authority should have known better.
They do know better now apparently, mainly because people objected. You described objection as intolerance. That is utterly absurd of you.
The objection apparently has made a difference. It caused the catholic school authority to reconsider encouraging hateful speech in their school after they discovered their discriminatory christian beliefs were not acceptable.
What you mean is, it doesn't matter that I didn't actually say illegal. It's that you've decided I said illegal when I didn't, and I implied something I do not.
The school is an entity. It is controlled by its owners/executive. School governor's, making decisions on how the school will be run. What will be allowed what will not be allowed.
It now seems the school will not be allowed to make what is tantamount to hate speech in assembly by employees or visiting catholic guests or anyone else for that matter. The school no longer is being allowed to do what it did.
No need or mention of the word illegal.
Furthermore it is blatantly obvious your idea that objecting to discriminating speech is an attempt to restrict free speech, is completely silly.
What am I saying right there Piggie?
Same as I say above. No more no less, it is quite clear. Better had you cared to enquire earlier instead of jumping to your own false conclusions.
No it doesn't make sense and it's just astonishing you still don't get it.
Let me try again.
Nothing to do with free speech, nothing to do with illegality. You bringing those and other issues like - it's a private school so they can say what they want - is not the point. It never was. Those are red herrings.
A church school made discriminating hate speech, and directed some of it personally against some of its pupils. That is the point.
Hate speech, especially in a learning environment where children are obliged to attend, is never okay.
That's it. The school shouldn't allow it. Their governors shouldn't have allowed it. That type of verbal abuse shouldn't be allowed in school.
The school's own authority should have known better.
They do know better now apparently, mainly because people objected. You described objection as intolerance. That is utterly absurd of you.
The objection apparently has made a difference. It caused the catholic school authority to reconsider encouraging hateful speech in their school after they discovered their discriminatory christian beliefs were not acceptable.