Quote from stu:
You are completely missing the point.
The argument is not about the right of free speech or freedom of, or freedom from religion. Hence my response to illustrate that. Obviously it wasn't clear enough.
Actually that is exactly what the argument boils down to. The RIGHT of the catholic school to state it's belief, especially on its own property. There really isn't a rational argument against this, what they did was well within their rights.
The issue is a catholic school was intolerant and discriminating against its pupils. The right to believe what anyone wants to is quite a separate and different issue to intolerance.
taking a page out of the Clinton playbook, you have essentially diluted this argument into: what is the definition of intolerant? Guess what, even if the church's positions were technically intolerant.. they are still ALLOWED to state them. And they are still ALLOWED to mandate the students hear their position, AT THEIR OWN PRIVATE SCHOOL. The students are allowed to disagree. But, IF they don't think the anti-gay school, they attend, should be ALLOWED to state its anti-gay position, or shout them down, or refuse to listen, then they are also being intolerant. Why? because they attend a religious school that holds an anti-homosexual position.
Your argument steps over the failure of a church school to get its homophobic message across, weird as it is and intolerant as it is, without verbally and personally abusing children.
You made this up. In fact, re-read the article:
http://www.startribune.com/local/146031865.html?refer=y.. the students
asked the church reps questions and then got pissed at the answers. lol. The church didn't
personally attack anyone.
There is no need to talk in terms of making stuff illegal. That's just another emotional siding you've run off on. Most institutions over time adopt a responsible and intelligent ethos. Not going out of their way to verbally abuse, insult and discriminate against children in their care might have been a good start a long time ago for that religious school not to mention religion in general.
On your very first post of that thread:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=240954&highlight=religion, you were obviously implying that they shouldn't be ALLOWED to call that meeting. You have admitted as much since. Regardless of
how, what matters is you don't want the school to be able to hold that assembly. that's wrong and it is a 1st amendment issue.
You seem to think its ok for a catholic school in this case to be grossly offensive against certain groups of children in its care merely because of a freedom of religion. You're saying it is intolerant to object to intolerant speech because the intolerance is religious belief .
I don't think, I KNOW that it is ok for the catholic school to state their beliefs, intolerant or not, in the manner that they did. I didn't say the students were intolerant for objecting or disagreeing. Unless, as I wrote above, they try to shut them up or prevent them from stating said beliefs. I said YOU were intolerant for implying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do it. I know you are going to argue that the church's positions are intolerant, and it can't possibly be intolerant to object to them. Objection to them is not what is intolerant, attempting to silence or prevent them from stating their belief, is. You are being hugely obstinate.. so how the fuck else can i explain this?
I don't think that's ever right. What's next? Will your "freedom of religion" allow for a catholic school to groom their pupils for potential sexual assault by visiting bishops?
After all, they have religious freedom!
Real douchy comment. Obviously common law trumps religious belief. Otherwise we would have jihadi's running around blowing shit up cause its what they believe. Don't be silly.
