christians sue for right not to tolerate - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-12-2006, 11:39 PM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:00 PM
Unfortunately, your first point is so far off the chart that the rest of your statements are meaningless.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:40 PM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Unfortunately, your first point is so far off the chart that the rest of your statements are meaningless.
If Christians can't take the heat, then don't start the fires.

It makes me utterly disgusted the pedestal we put religion on in society, considering the kind of shit it shoves down our throats on a regular basis.

If people can't fucking keep their hatred of others to themselves, then they don't deserve to mingle in society. It's as simple as that. Christians' right to hate does not trump the right of homosexuals to live their lives in peace and dignity.

And if Christians don't understand that, they might as well burn their Bibles.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Unless Christians want others to be intolerant of them and harrass them, then they'd better fucking back off.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:42 PM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 10:00 PM
I thought Irvine started this thread.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-12-2006, 11:48 PM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
I thought Irvine started this thread.


KRUGER: (getting up to leave) Thank you George, you've been great. That's it for me.
GEORGE: Oh no, you're not going out on a high note with me Mr. Kruger!
KRUGER: It's K-uger!
GEORGE: No! No!
KRUGER: Goodnight everybody!

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 12:25 AM   #50
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Similar consequences?
Anytime you have a group that preaches against another, you will have consequences such as eliminating certain minority from leadership positions, memberships, etc. Now CCs have a much stronger impact than the KKK, but the KKK are much more extreme.

BUT, when you start calling certain groups an abomination, certain people will take things into their own hands.


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

We've been around the block too many times on the interpretation issues. A solid argument could be made that the speaker referenced in the original article is not using misinterpreted or out of context Scripture.
I have yet meet one person to date, that has shown me otherwise and I've had this conversation with a theology major who couldn't come up with anything after almost an hour except, "I have faith that God wouldn't allow his word to be misinterpreted."


Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

This raises the most interesting issue here - should colleges become unique islands of limited free speech? Does your answer to this question depend n the list of approved and disapproved speech?
Should they? I don't know. Have they been? Yes.

Does my answer depend, no.

I'm actually torn on the subject. Where as one hand I think anything should go, but on the other hand, similar to the idea of dress codes in lower education, allowing certain extreme language of either side may distract from the education.

I don't know.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 04:45 AM   #51
Refugee
 
dazzlingamy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The city of blinding lights and amazing coffee - Melbourne.
Posts: 2,468
Local Time: 05:00 PM
Hrm, interesting discussion here. I in no way agree with this girls views, and believe this is just another frivilous law suit taking up time in a court for no reason what so ever, especially when suing something doesn't make you automatically right regardless of the outcome, i do believ ein free speech.

Let her hate. She is NEVER going to change her mind, like every other stubborn person on earth. Let her hand out pamphlets, have her little rah rah republican rallies. If i can sit around with my friends and question them on their religious choices. To tell them 'you are MAD for believing in something so OUT there, you sure your not a scientoligst?' then so can she.

I guess the fine line is, if she is saying 'god hates gays' or 'its a sin against god' well according to their bible it is. So she's saying what she believes in, and even though i and im sure a lot fo you totally disagree with it (me on a whole bunch of levels) why right do we have to enforce OUR opinons on her?

Now if she was saying 'go bash some gays they deserve to die' then she is breaking the law and should be fined/arrested whater. Inciting hate and violence based on someones orientation/appearance/intelligance etc, its monsterous and disgusting and these are the people we need to watch.

If someone hears 'god hates gays' and decided to kick the hell out of a gay guy, or targets a black guy or some other minority, then HE should be the one getting the full extent of the law, not the orginal comment and commentator.

I just think we need to all take responsibility for our actions. If we don't like what someone is saying walk away, ignoring it whatever. If they HARRASS you, it goes into a whole different field and they need an ass kicking in return. hahaha but no seriously, that is when it gets into breaking the law area.
__________________
dazzlingamy is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 05:22 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
Re: Re: Re: christians sue for right not to tolerate

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

so i'm putting my foot down: i will never, ever hire a Zororastrian. how dare you infringe on my right to do so!
If it is your property then that should be your right. I think that would be better than "positive discrimination".

If you are recieving taxpayer subsidies then you have to accept anyone and cannot discriminate.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 05:26 AM   #53
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
And goddamn it. I want my right to protest during church services. What kind of society is it when I cannot exercise my right to free speech by making a direct counterargument against a minister's sermon to the congregation? What is this? North fucking Korea? Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas, guys?

Melon


Although since your probably not going to be a paying member of that club they may well kick you out.

I would be more than happy to teach the fundamentals of Gideon Soccer or Quran frisbee.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 07:28 AM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

If people can't fucking keep their hatred of others to themselves, then they don't deserve to mingle in society. It's as simple as that. Christians' right to hate does not trump the right of homosexuals to live their lives in peace and dignity.
What they deserve is a matter of debate, hatred is always going to be a component of society ~ the question becomes how do the most of men react to the haters?

What is a definition of peace and dignity? In terms of equal rights under law and legal recognition of union that is fair ~ but in terms of having to have believers stow their vitriol - there is no right to not be offended; but there is of course a right to live a life without having property damaged, threats made or as has been seen too many times violence inflicted.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 08:06 AM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
What they deserve is a matter of debate, hatred is always going to be a component of society ~ the question becomes how do the most of men react to the haters?

What is a definition of peace and dignity? In terms of equal rights under law and legal recognition of union that is fair ~ but in terms of having to have believers stow their vitriol - there is no right to not be offended; but there is of course a right to live a life without having property damaged, threats made or as has been seen too many times violence inflicted.
"Speech," in the most literal sense, is one thing. And "speech" in public and in the media, of course, is one thing. But when we're talking about the "right to hate" at work or in housing, etc., then I would say that there is no right.

It's common sense, I would think. But it appears that religious indoctrination has gone a long way of eroding common sense in this country.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 08:26 AM   #56
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
I have yet meet one person to date, that has shown me otherwise and I've had this conversation with a theology major who couldn't come up with anything after almost an hour except, "I have faith that God wouldn't allow his word to be misinterpreted."
I always chuckle over that argument. "God's word" has been interpreted differently over the centuries and by different cultures. In fact, we've had three or four "Great Awakenings" in the U.S., and it's noted that with each "Great Awakening," there's a huge dose of romanticism to a remote fictionalized past each time.

I'd say this theology major has wasted his education, if that's the argument he's coming up with after all that.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 08:34 AM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Kieran McConville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Auto Dafoe
Posts: 9,600
Local Time: 04:00 PM
i gotta chip in here and say that yes God would allow his work to be 'misinterpreted'... we do have free will, contrary to some of this nonsense. The idea that God would/will/does step in to stop things going awry is dangerous, as He clearly does no such thing.
__________________
Kieran McConville is offline  
Old 04-13-2006, 10:20 AM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: christians sue for right not to tolerate

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If you are recieving taxpayer subsidies then you have to accept anyone and cannot discriminate.


unfortunately, this is not true.

it is perfectly legal to fire someone in many states for being gay, whether one is working for a private company or for the government at any level.

the Boy Scouts receive tons of federal handouts, yet they discriminate against both gays and atheists.

as do some universities:

[q]Reaction grows to gay student's expulsion
By Jamie Gumbrecht
HERALD-LEADER CULTURE WRITER

The news that his boyfriend, Jason Johnson, was expelled from University of the Cumberlands was still sinking in when Zac Dreyer sat at a computer to spread the news.

"He is being asked to leave the university because he is gay," Dreyer wrote Thursday on the Web site MySpace.com, the same site school officials used to confront Johnson. "Help get the story out there so that all the gays and lesbians at the university will no longer have to live in secrecy, in fear of having their dreams crushed in front of them."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/14313621.htm

[/q]

and this university receives federal funds:

[q]Legislator says school shouldn't get funds
By John Stamper

FRANKFORT - State funding for a new pharmacy school building at the University of the Cumberlands should not be included in the budget if the private school doesn't stop discriminating against gay students, a legislator warned last night.

"We should not be budgeting bigotry," Sen. Ernesto Scorsone, D-Lexington, told colleagues before voting on the $18.1 billion, two-year budget. Scorsone is the only openly gay member of the General Assembly.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/14313631.htm

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-13-2006, 10:27 AM   #59
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This raises the most interesting issue here - should colleges become unique islands of limited free speech? Does your answer to this question depend n the list of approved and disapproved speech?


while i don't think this is exactly the issue i was getting at here, i do think it's important to note that colleges have always had unique islands of limited free speech.

since many students board at college, there does seem to be limits on what can be said in, say, a dorm or at a campus party because this is where the student lives, and there is a perceived right not to be harassed in someone's living space. i don't think this extends to the classroom, nor do i think it should, but having been something of an RA for a group of first-year students when i was a junior, we made it very clear that the dorm was a home, and that everyone had a right to feel comfortable and safe.

yes, we were saying that we would not tolerate intolerance, and i saw nothing wrong what that.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 04-13-2006, 10:35 AM   #60
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Amazing how many are intollerant of what they call intollerance


now this is getting at what i hoped to discuss.

when does someone's expression of a certain right (in this case, religious expression) become someone else's harassment?

i think we can agree that in a public space, there is little that can, or should be done.

but in settings like a workplace and a university, where do we draw the line between anti-harassment ethics and the freedome to express one's religious beliefs?

is intolerance of intolerance simply another form of intolerance? or is that being too relativist and meta about it? is this just a common sense thing?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com