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
309832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
This world doesn't need more Christians.
So, the world doesn't need more people whose religion says they should help others, hate nobody and just all around play nice?
Why the hell not?
Because religions cause wars and death and are bad, silly.
Post by
309832
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
This world doesn't need more Christians.
So, the world doesn't need more people whose religion says they should help others, hate nobody and just all around play nice?
Why the hell not?
Because religions cause wars and death and are bad, silly.
/facepalm
I was being sarcastic....
Post by
85162
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ruleofthumb
This is an example why I don't like Fox News. They are too bias and try to appeal to the people too much.
Everyone (including the article) is trying to center this around Christianity too much. And the thing about this whole issue, is that its about religion, and forcing others to hear your rhetoric about your god.
Would you allow an Islamic group go around your city promoting their religion freely? How about Muslims? Probably not. I'm sure you wouldn't want your children to be exposed to something you and your family don't believe in.
The city has laws against public displays of religion. Then so be it. Instead of whining about it, present a plea to the city council to allow it. Until then, people need to follow the law. Just because they are breaking the law for a benevolent reason, doesn't make justified.
Post by
MyTie
If the situation were a bunch of muslims preaching to kids, I would still be saying that they should be allowed to, as long as they aren't doing anything illegal.Would you allow an Islamic group go around your city promoting their religion freely? How about Muslims? Probably not. I'm sure you wouldn't want your children to be exposed to something you and your family don't believe in.Irony crits on you for 100K points! Not only do I think my children deserve to be exposed to many different religions and cultures, but the Qur'an will be required reading during thier high school years as long as they are homeschooled. This is so they understand many perspectives.The city has laws against public displays of religion. Then so be it. Instead of whining about it, present a plea to the city council to allow it. Until then, people need to follow the law. Just because they are breaking the law for a benevolent reason, doesn't make justified.No, there is no law banning public displays of religion. Sorry. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Post by
ruleofthumb
No, there is no law banning public displays of religion. Sorry. You have no idea what you are talking about.
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.
Yeah, you're right... No idea.
The group was in violation of a city policy. Okay, I worded it as "law" in my previous post. But its the same concept. Stop blindly calling people out to be wrong without making sure they are.
Post by
MyTie
No, there is no law banning public displays of religion. Sorry. You have no idea what you are talking about.
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.
Yeah, you're right... No idea.
The group was in violation of a city policy. Okay, I worded it as "law" in my previous post. But its the same concept. Stop blindly calling people out to be wrong without making sure they are.
Constitutional Amendment > City policy
And what about the first part of my post, where you judged me foolishly. Care to apologize?
Post by
TheMediator
Telling young kids that they'll go to hell and threatening them with eternal punishment = forcing them to convert. They don't have the capacity at a very young age to realize that the religious nuts' threats are bull^&*!. Religion shouldn't be anywhere near kids until they're at least 18 or so, until they're old enough to clearly see the truth, and then they can decide for themselves if they want to delve into that fantasy land or stay cleared minded.
Again, these people aren't good people, they choose not going out there and doing what they've done because they can't fill kids' heads with crap.
Post by
ruleofthumb
No. I wasn't judging you, and I wasn't addressing you specifically. If you took it that way, then thats your problem.
Maybe you're right, the city was wrong to create a policy that tries to trump the constitution, but since it has been a policy for quite some time. And its just
now
being challenged, apparently no one minded it until it hurt some religious group's feelings. But if the city's policy was put in place after this group started its works two decades ago and they are retroactively banning them, that could be seen as wrong, but its how the world works.
I don't know who said that they were "converting children", whether it was someone from the city, the fellowship, or just an opinion of the article's author.
Edited some stuff.
Post by
MyTie
Telling young kids that they'll go to hell and threatening them with eternal punishment = forcing them to convert.
It sounds as if they all played basketball and talked about Jesus. I know... I know... that's pretty harsh stuff to lay on a kid. Those people that volunteered thier time to spend with the children, are christians. As we know, ALL christians threaten kids. This is why we need to ban religion from society.
Post by
MyTie
Would you allow an Islamic group go around your city promoting their religion freely? How about Muslims? Probably not.
No. I wasn't judging you, and I wasn't addressing you specifically. If you took it that way, then thats your problem.You are an idiot. (That comment is directed at no one in particular)
Maybe you're right, the city was wrong to create a policy that tries to trump the constitution, but since it has been a policy for, what, two decades? And its just now being challenged, apparently no one minded it until it hurt some religious group's feelings.So, violating the constitution is ok as long as no one seems to mind?
Post by
ruleofthumb
You are an idiot. (That comment is directed at no one in particular)
That's real cute, MyTie.
And I edited my post. It might put some more insight on the original version of it.
Post by
MyTie
But if the city's policy was put in place after this group started its works two decades ago and they are retroactively banning them, that could be seen as wrong, but its how the world works.
The US constitution gives person A explicit right to do action B. A US city says that person A cannot do action B. The city is wrong. The US Supreme Court agrees that the city is wrong.
Post by
Skyfire
Hmm, something else...
I think most of you are posting on the mistaken assumption(s) that these children are or are not forced to convert when asked to, and that they must leave afterwards if they choose not to.
The article does not say whether the children will be removed from the group or not.
I would then say that it is in the Church's best interests to keep them in the group, in the hope that they will choose to convert a later date.
Further, the article does not say whether or not the Church group has the
choice
of going at this date and time to the housing project, only that they have been banned. So, assuming that they are choosing not to go because they cannot preach is another false assumption. Who knows the specifics of their case? Apparently, only the city does.
I think that if this goes to court, the court will agree with the result of the 2001 US Supreme Court majority decision. If the city is smart, they'll lift the ban.
Edit: Tweak to the italics.
Post by
MyTie
Skyfire summarized nicely. It is amazing how many assumptions people make when they see 'Christian'. I think this is largely the fault of the religious community. So many times in the past they have done things that are not christian or honest that they have made a poor reputation for the rest of us.
Post by
TheMediator
I think most of you are posting on the mistaken assumption(s) that these children are or are not forced to convert when asked to, and that they must leave afterwards if they choose not to.
The article does not say whether the children will be removed from the group or not.
I would then say that it is in the Church's best interests to keep them in the group, in the hope that they will choose to convert a later date.
Calling it a mistaken assumption implies that the assumption is not correct. However, you state that you don't know whether or not they are, so you can't say whether or not their assumption is or isn't correct.
Post by
Skyfire
Calling it a mistaken assumption implies that the assumption is not correct. However, you state that you don't know whether or not they are, so you can't say whether or not their assumption is or isn't correct.
To assume here is incorrect, which I'm sure you know that is what I meant.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.