This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Transgender
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Suicide should be legal, provided the to-be-deceased is dying of an incurable disease and wishes to forego the slow death and massive medical costs (if they're living in the United States or a third-world nation). For any other reason they're more than likely just depressed and reacting drastically to that depression. I suppose if they could show they were of sound mind and rationally just saw no reason for their continued existence I'd be for their right to off themselves, I just doubt the likelihood of that (living creatures tend to cling to life at all costs).
Why does "soundness of mind," as defined by you, determine what a person can and cannot do with their body? I could say that transgender people aren't sound in mind and therefore I get to control them. Why is that any different?
That seems as insane and short sighted as other self-mutilation or suicide does to me, but it's fairly socially acceptable.
That's the point. It's not. I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy.
Post by
630898
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Cambo
As long as the transgender person is happy, and as long as they aren't harming or hurting someone (IE Love Thy Neighbour), not a problem.
So I ask (not just to you, but to everyone who would hold this position), why is "cutting oneself" or committing suicide any different? There is this movement to accept people mutilating their body in the quest for sexual fulfillment, yet a continued push away from the other two? How does one reconcile that?
As far as I know, self mutiliation (think emo etc) and trans-gender are not the same.
Traditional self mutilation I think stems from emotional hurt, possible insecurity, and perhaps just attention seeking.
Trans-gender people claim to be uncomfortable with the physical indication of their sex (IE genitalia).
Trans-gender is more openly accepted than self-mutilation, because one says 'I hate you/me/the world so I am going to cut myself", the other says "I feel more male/female than female/male, so I am going to correct my physical characteristics because that should make me feel comfortable".
They are similar, but you have to look deeper at the motivation.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As far as I know, self mutiliation (think emo etc) and trans-gender are not the same.
Traditional self mutilation I think stems from emotional hurt, possible insecurity, and perhaps just attention seeking.
Trans-gender people claim to be uncomfortable with the physical indication of their sex (IE genitalia).
Trans-gender is more openly accepted than self-mutilation, because one says 'I hate you/me/the world so I am going to cut myself", the other says "I feel more male/female than female/male, so I am going to correct my physical characteristics because that should make me feel comfortable".
They are similar, but you have to look deeper at the motivation.
That's not the point. Motivation is completely personal, so they are in fact exactly the same insofar as the point I made.
Post by
Monday
On that note, Funden, do Mormon's consider themselves Christians? As it stands, most Christians don't consider them Christians, but I was never sure if it was mutual or not.
Frankly, those who say we aren't are stupid. We worship Christ, we believe he saved the world from sin with his Crucifixion, we have most of the same views and we call ourselves Christian.
Most people who say we aren't are those trying to discredit us to stop converts from joining, tbh.
Edit:
just like how the constitution never mention slaves..
Incorrect. Several parts concerning slaves were amended and taken out, but they were there (I don't have them now, but I can get the section/clauses if somebody wants them).
Nor is it be allowed to take atheism's side.
This ^ Just because the government cannot support one religion doesn't mean it should make itself purely secular and make laws against religious beliefs because they can.
Edit 2: I found them: Article 1 section 2 Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)
Article 4 section 2 No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Edit 3: And to clarify my other statement: The government shouldn't favor one religion, but it should take into account religious views and shouldn't have atheistic views imo.
Post by
Patty
for example... a 18 year old gets in a car accident and needs a blood transfusion to survive.. he denies the blood transfusion because he is catholic and would rather die.
I always thought that was Jehovah's witnesses. /shrug
Post by
Skreeran
To that first part, that's not a valid argument. Just because one argument is wrong doesn't mean you can go ahead and assume the contrary. And to the second part, forbidding a religious practice is very much putting religion "into the Constitution." Either the State and Religion have nothing to do with each other or they don't. You can't have it both ways.Who ever said the Constitution bans a religious practice?
The Constitution guarantees everyone freedom of religion. That means the government can't take any particular religion's "side." And that means that employees of the government (like say, school teachers) are not allowed to lead their classrooms in prayer, because those students have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe, and should not have to conform to whatever religion their teacher subscribes to.
Private schools, on the other hand, are perfectly allowed to lead their students in prayer, because they are not funded by the government. Do you see where the distiction lies?
The government cannot take any religion's side.
Fun fact: Many people are eager to quote things like "One nation under God" and "In God We Trust." "...one nation, under God..." was added to the pledge of allegiance in 1948, and "In God We Trust" was made the national motto in 1956. They were hardly the opinions of the Framers.
I might quote the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
The United States of America are not an atheist nation, but nor are they christian, and every standpoint on religious matters, believing or not, is of equal value. That's why, even with a religious majority, the United States must remain secular. Better to keep church and state separated altogether.
Nor is it be allowed to take atheism's side.When did I say that?
I am an atheist. It is apparent that you are not. Thanks to our government, you are free to make that choice, and I am free to make mine. I am glad that I live in a country that allows us that choice. I am glad that the government is not founded on any religion.
All people should be free of persecution, gay, transgender, atheist, or otherwise.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Nor is it be allowed to take atheism's side.When did I say that?
teachers are forbidden from leading their classes in prayer
There you go. An express forbidding of a religious practice.
If we are really supposed to be neutral to the whole religion thing, it should be that teachers are forbidden from
forcing
their class to pray.
The Constitution guarantees everyone freedom of religion. That means the government can't take any particular religion's "side." And that means that employees of the government (like say, school teachers) are not allowed to lead their classrooms in prayer, because those students have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe, and should not have to conform to whatever religion their teacher subscribes to.
Essentially you're saying that because of freedom of religion, we should force everyone to practice atheism in the classroom. Forcing teachers not to pray is just as much a breach into religion as forcing them to pray.
Post by
HiVolt
Nor is it be allowed to take atheism's side.When did I say that?
teachers are forbidden from leading their classes in prayer
There you go. An express forbidding of a religious practice.
If we are really supposed to be neutral to the whole religion thing, it should be that teachers are forbidden from
forcing
their class to pray.
The Constitution guarantees everyone freedom of religion. That means the government can't take any particular religion's "side." And that means that employees of the government (like say, school teachers) are not allowed to lead their classrooms in prayer, because those students have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe, and should not have to conform to whatever religion their teacher subscribes to.
Essentially you're saying that because of freedom of religion, we should force everyone to practice atheism in the class room. Forcing teachers not to pray is just as much a breach into religion as forcing them to pray.
The scenario you're describing easily singles out children who do not want to participate in teacher-led prayer sessions by the other children. That could easily lead to teasing and bullying all from a little "harmless" teacher-led prayer. Then there's also the notion that the teacher might take offense to certain students who don't wish to follow the prayer session, and following that, there could be a number of less-than-desirable results.
In an ideal world, allowing teachers to lead classrooms in prayer would be just dandy, because no one would be upset by it. But, that's just not the case.
Having religious clubs and groups in school is fine, there's nothing against it. But, if teachers are to lead classes in prayer, it should either be done in private or religious schools. State-funded schools have no business allowing their teachers to lead
classrooms
(not saying teachers can't lead their Bible Clubs, etc. in prayer) in prayer because it is not in the best interest of the children.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The scenario you're describing easily singles out children who do not want to participate in teacher-led prayer sessions by the other children. That could easily lead to teasing and bullying all from a little "harmless" teacher-led prayer. Then there's also the notion that the teacher might take offense to certain students who don't wish to follow the prayer session, and following that, there could be a number of less-than-desirable results.
And the opposite scenario singles out the students who want to pray before any activity.
But even if that weren't the case, peer pressure is the worst reason to allow the government to control religion.
In an ideal world, allowing teachers to lead classrooms in prayer would be just dandy, because no one would be upset by it. But, that's just not the case.
So atheists get to have hissy fits and get their way, but no one else?
Post by
HiVolt
The scenario you're describing easily singles out children who do not want to participate in teacher-led prayer sessions by the other children. That could easily lead to teasing and bullying all from a little "harmless" teacher-led prayer. Then there's also the notion that the teacher might take offense to certain students who don't wish to follow the prayer session, and following that, there could be a number of less-than-desirable results.
And the opposite scenario singles out the students who want to pray before any activity.
But even if that weren't the case, peer pressure is the worst reason to allow the government to control religion.
It's not peer pressure it's religious intolerance, and therefore shouldn't be condoned under any circumstance. The best way to keep the problem from arising, is to make sure that state-funded schools keep their teachers from favoring ANY doctrine, whether it be atheist or buddhist, or christian, etc. while inside the classroom.
So atheists get to have hissy fits and get their way, but no one else?
Atheists get to have hissy fits and get their way because they have hissy fits about state-funded institutions supporting particular religious doctrines. Now, if state-funded schools started having their teachers proclaiming that there is no god, then the religious types can have theirs, because that would also go against the idea.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's not peer pressure it's religious intolerance, and therefore shouldn't be condoned under any circumstance. The best way to keep the problem from arising, is to make sure that state-funded schools keep their teachers from favoring ANY doctrine, whether it be atheist or buddhist, or christian, etc. while inside the classroom.
And forcing them not to pray favors atheism.
Post by
HiVolt
It's not peer pressure it's religious intolerance, and therefore shouldn't be condoned under any circumstance. The best way to keep the problem from arising, is to make sure that state-funded schools keep their teachers from favoring ANY doctrine, whether it be atheist or buddhist, or christian, etc. while inside the classroom.
And forcing them not to pray favors atheism.
No one is forcing students not to pray, they are forcing teachers to refrain from leading classrooms in prayer. Quite a large difference.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It's not peer pressure it's religious intolerance, and therefore shouldn't be condoned under any circumstance. The best way to keep the problem from arising, is to make sure that state-funded schools keep their
teachers
from favoring ANY doctrine, whether it be atheist or buddhist, or christian, etc. while inside the classroom.
And forcing
them
not to pray favors atheism.
No one is forcing students not to pray, they are forcing teachers to refrain from leading classrooms in prayer. Quite a large difference.
Bolded and underlined. I would have thought the antecedent was pretty obvious.
Post by
Skreeran
It's not peer pressure it's religious intolerance, and therefore shouldn't be condoned under any circumstance. The best way to keep the problem from arising, is to make sure that state-funded schools keep their
teachers
from favoring ANY doctrine, whether it be atheist or buddhist, or christian, etc. while inside the classroom.
And forcing
them
not to pray favors atheism.
No one is forcing students not to pray, they are forcing teachers to refrain from leading classrooms in prayer. Quite a large difference.
Bolded and underlined. I would have thought the antecedent was pretty obvious.They are allowed to pray, privately, of course.
They cannot lead students in prayer.
Besides, I would think that, in accordance with Matthew 6:6, that's how you'd want it to be.
Post by
HiVolt
It's not peer pressure it's religious intolerance, and therefore shouldn't be condoned under any circumstance. The best way to keep the problem from arising, is to make sure that state-funded schools keep their
teachers
from favoring ANY doctrine, whether it be atheist or buddhist, or christian, etc. while inside the classroom.
And forcing
them
not to pray favors atheism.
No one is forcing students not to pray, they are forcing teachers to refrain from leading classrooms in prayer. Quite a large difference.
Bolded and underlined. I would have thought the antecedent was pretty obvious.
Nobody is saying that teachers can't pray either, just that they can't lead their
ENTIRE CLASSROOMS
(which includes students) in prayer.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
They are allowed to pray, privately, of course.
They cannot lead students in prayer.
You're still controlling religion in favor of atheism. There is no way around it unless you admit that you're "neutral" view is not actually neutral.
Besides, I would think that, in accordance with Matthew 6:6, that's how you'd want it to be.
Quoting out of context is a fallacy. You should get together with Aestu; he likes using fallacies too.
Nobody is saying that teachers can't pray either, just that they can't lead their
ENTIRE CLASSROOMS
(which includes students) in prayer.
That's still controlling religion.
Government siding with religion
:
Teachers and students are forced to start the day with a prayer.
Government siding with atheism
:
Teachers and students are forbidden to start the day with a prayer.
Government being neutral
:
Teachers are allowed to allow students to pray together, but neither the teacher nor the student is forced to.
Now the first two are obviously the most extreme examples. There are varying degrees between them and neutrality. Your "neutral" model falls in there somewhere between atheism and neutrality.
Post by
Skreeran
That's still controlling religion.
Government siding with religion:
Teachers and students are forced to start the day with a prayer.
Government siding with atheism:
Teachers and students are forbidden to start the day with a prayer.
Government being neutral:
Teachers are allowed to allow students to pray together, but neither the teacher nor the student is forced to.
Now the first two are obviously the most extreme examples. There are varying degrees between them and neutrality. Your "neutral" model falls in there somewhere between atheism and neutrality.The teacher is allowed to pray in private. The students are allowed to pray in private. Those who do not wish to pray are not forced to sit and listen as other people take up their precious time leading them in prayer.
If I send my child to a public school, I should be able to do that without worrying that a government employee is indoctrinating them with public, classwide prayer. And I should not have to worry about them being alienated and sent out of the classroom while everyone else prays either.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Whoever said that people have a right to make people pray who do not wish to?
Exactly. Who said that? I don't see anyone saying that in this thread.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.