This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Discrimination
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Here
is a news story about an example of discrimination in which popular opinion may be in favor of it. What do you think?
Post by
Laihendi
For more than 70 years, the Missouri-based Child Evangelism Fellowship has worked with underprivileged kids,
not only to convert them to Christianity
, but to improve their lives through education and after-school activities. In one program, fellowship missionaries visit prisons and sign up inmates' children for Bible study programs in an effort to keep them from winding up in jail themselves.That's why they were "banned".
But recently, the fellowship was told that it was in violation of a long-standing policy prohibiting religious instruction on public housing property, said Larry Koehn, who heads the organization's chapter in the city.
"They said they have a policy now whereby we can't come in and talk about God or Christ," Koehn said. "We can come in and play games and talk about moral things, but we can't mention the name of God."Basically, it looks like as long as they stop trying to convert people they can stay.
Post by
MyTie
The real question is: Can people with religious aims utilize public grounds with those aims in mind?
Post by
Laihendi
Based on that article, Laihendi would guess no.
Post by
MyTie
You missed the part where the Supreme Court upheld thier rights to do so. I wonder what people CAN do on public property? Who decides that? If the property is for public use, why should we discriminate against religious groups?
What about public roads? Can I drive to church on them? I mean, I am using public space with religious aims in mind.
Don't be so quick to discriminate. Imagine the ridiculous vomiting of criticisms you would do on someone else if they were like "Gays can use public places, as long as they don't, you know, do gay stuff on them".
Post by
TheMediator
"They said they have a policy now whereby we can't come in and talk about God or Christ," Koehn said. "We can come in and play games and talk about moral things, but we can't mention the name of God."
They're banning themselves basically. They can't keep their mouth shut and just help other people, instead they put their religious goals of converting people before actually helping them. They're worthless humans.
Post by
Laihendi
You missed the part where the Supreme Court upheld thier rights to do so. I wonder what people CAN do on public property? Who decides that? If the property is for public use, why should we discriminate against religious groups?
What about public roads? Can I drive to church on them? I mean, I am using public space with religious aims in mind.
Don't be so quick to discriminate. Imagine the ridiculous vomiting of criticisms you would do on someone else if they were like "Gays can use public places, as long as they don't, you know, do gay stuff on them".
There's a difference between doing gay things with other gay people, and trying to force others to do gay things and embrace and live a gay lifestyle.
Now, replace "gay" with "christian" and then you should understand why that group was "banned".
Post by
MyTie
There's a difference between doing gay things with other gay people, and trying to force others to do gay things and embrace and live a gay lifestyle.
By Force? Who said they were recruting by force?
They can't keep their mouth shut and just help other people, instead they put their religious goals of converting people before actually helping them. They're worthless humans.This pretty much summarizes your stupidity.
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
They weren't just there trying to help less fortunate, they were trying to push their religious agenda on others, and convert them.
If an organization of homosexuals was trying to push some sort of political agenda there, they would be banned too.
I don't know if they would or wouldn't be. I think that they shouldn't be though, since it is public property. As long as they aren't doing anything violent or against the law, they should be allowed, JUST LIKE THE RELIGOUS ORGANIZATION.
You are ignoring right and wrong and just argueing against them because they are a religious organization. You cannot remain unbiased.
Post by
Laihendi
There's a difference between doing gay things with other gay people, and trying to force others to do gay things and embrace and live a gay lifestyle.
By Force? Who said they were recruting by force?
For more than 70 years, the Missouri-based Child Evangelism Fellowship has worked with underprivileged kids,
not only to convert them to Christianity
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
SirStabAlot
MyTie, For all that is holy(no pun intended), stop making these debate threads.
Post by
Laihendi
I don't know if they would or wouldn't be. I think that they shouldn't be though, since it is public property. As long as they aren't doing anything violent or against the law, they should be allowed, JUST LIKE THE RELIGOUS ORGANIZATION.
You are ignoring right and wrong and just argueing against them because they are a religious organization. You cannot remain unbiased.
But recently, the fellowship was told that it was in violation of a long-standing policy prohibiting religious instruction on public housing property, said Larry Koehn, who heads the organization's chapter in the city.
"They said they have a policy now whereby we can't come in and talk about God or Christ," Koehn said. "We can come in and play games and talk about moral things, but we can't mention the name of God."
Absol... it says at the very beginning of the article that the group was there, in part, to convert children to Christianity.
Post by
122776
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
Absol... it says at the very beginning of the article that the group was there, in part, to convert children to Christianity.
But does it say they were forcing their religion on people?
If you are a Christian organization going out to public housing projects to convert children to christianity, then you
are
forcing your religion on people...
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
MyTie, For all that is holy(no pun intended), stop making these debate threads.
Three Questions:
1) What would randomness be without the debate or otherwise quality threads?
2) Why?
3) Who the hell are you?
Post by
MyTie
If you are a Christian organization going out to public housing projects to convert children to christianity, then you
are
forcing your religion on people...
Really?
So, if I go to a public housing project, and the topic of religion comes up, and I explain what I believe Christianity is in the hopes that some people that aren't Christians will convert, I'm forcing my religion?
At gunpoint.
Laihendi is as naive and biased toward others as he points out some people are of him. He is very hipocritical.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.