And So It Begins... [W:301]

[distraff]

Right, they're preaching the religion of the State to the exclusion of all others. Champions of liberty you people are...my god...:roll::lamo

What is the religion of the state? I have never heard of it.

 

[ChezC3]

I think that's more a Catholic trait, and as an ex-Catholic, I do know what I'm talking about there.


No, I think my only mistake today was responding to your post and thinking it might produce intelligent discussion.

Insults and "I know you are but what am I"'s :lamo

Two other tells of the Unthinking Left...

 

[ChezC3]

What is the religion of the state? I have never heard of it.

:lamo

Push on...

 

[distraff]

:lamo

Push on...

Just looked up wikipedia..


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

Hmmm... no state religion for the US. Did you get the US mixed up with the UK by any chance? The UK does have a state religion. Anglicanism.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Insults .

Yes, that's twice you've tried to insult me with "the unthinking left"

The word hypocrite comes to mind.

and "I know you are but what am I"'s :lamo

As an ex-Catholic I'm afraid I do know what you are - I've been there.

Two other tells of the Unthinking Left...

Now you started this lovey, and when it's turned on you you scream "insults"

Pathetic. You give but can't take.

 

[ksu_aviator]

not being able to oppress teenagers is itself oppressive to the christian persecution complex

honestly, this is the kind of reprehensible abuse veiled as victimhood that makes me want to punch 5 people in the face - the douchebag priest, lawyer, writer, hate group president, and process of elimination should make it clear who the last is

and that is almost without exception the list of culprits in all of these threads, only the names change

Pointing out sin isn't oppression. Everyone sins. EVERYONE! Pointing out sin is a way of sharing our faults and working to repair them. It is no different then taking a golf lesson. Having someone evaluate you and make corrections is so much easier than self evaluating. If people would quit refusing to acknowledge their faults and begin to improve themselves we could all be better neighbors

 

[chromium]

Pointing out sin isn't oppression. Everyone sins. EVERYONE! Pointing out sin is a way of sharing our faults and working to repair them. It is no different then taking a golf lesson. Having someone evaluate you and make corrections is so much easier than self evaluating. If people would quit refusing to acknowledge their faults and begin to improve themselves we could all be better neighbors

Oh yes, everyone sins which is why gay teens are like 800% more likely to be homeless amiright?

Don't pretend like this preacher or much of anyone else gives a **** about lying, blasphemy, greed etc compared to homosexuality and on top of that, those other "sins" are actual character flaws that very clearly can be corrected. I've no reason to listen to you on this matter. Changing one's orientation is not like improving one's golf handicap or swearing less, give me a ****ing break

You may as well go up to an actual handicapped, wheelchair-bound kid, or maybe a blind kid, and tell him to admit his faults and get to work repairing his legs. Then come back to me and tell me you weren't just being a cruel bastard and you should be given unlimited access to handicapped kids still

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What is the religion of the state? I have never heard of it.

Perhaps it will make more sense, if you understand that a major reason that Karl Marx was so opposed to religion was that he perceived it as a threat and as a rival to the state that he wanted to create; and it is for similar reason that in extreme authoritarian nations, the state makes a great effort to suppress religion, or else to directly control it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh yes, everyone sins which is why gay teens are like 800% more likely to be homeless amiright?

Bad choices tend to lead to bad results.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

No, that is informing someone of a belief in a religion. There is a difference.

No, it's pushing a religious belief if you are offering any advice based on that religious belief.

And for the record. I call homosexuality one of God's natural population control mechanisms. As homosexuality is seen in other species and has been shown in some part to be actually that. Difference with us humans is we were given the God given sense to know that that is disordered.

Acting on the impulse in spite of knowing this, is the sin.

It's a sin in your opinion... which in the general scheme of things is worthless.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And you deny that it is a sin.

I'll just keep trying to educate you on this issue and keep pointing out for others just how little you know about it. It being a sin is YOUR opinion, Nothing more. Worthless in the general scheme of things.

You're on the side that openly seeks to suppress and silence anyone who dares to speak the plain and obvious truth—whether by shame and intimidation, or by overt abuse of government power—demanding the “right” to push its sick and immoral lies unchallenged.

You're on the side of ignorance, pushing a moral belief that is nothing more than a subjective opinion that has no value when it comes to facts. You attempt to intimidate people by claiming some moral superiority, but you fail at every turn because your morality is irrelevant to anyone else. For you, without others accepting your subjective morality, your beliefs have no value. Fortunately, your ignorance on this issue doesn't go unchallenged and is defeated and shown to be worthless every time you present it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, it's pushing a religious belief if you are offering any advice based on that religious belief.

It is very specifically the job of a chaplain to offer advice, counsel, and comfort, based on his religious beliefs. It's his defining function.

 

[chromium]

Bad choices tend to lead to bad results.

mormons deserve to die for their bad choice

how does that feel

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Bad choices tend to lead to bad results.

No, research shows that is not the case in that scenario. Gay teens are more likely to become homeless because many have ignorant parents who choose their non-factual subjective morality over caring for their children. That's the legacy that some extremely religious folks will bear.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It is very specifically the job of a chaplain to offer advice, counsel, and comfort, based on his religious beliefs. It's his defining function.

Sure. In the proper place. A government facility where freedom from religion exists is not that place.

 

[Sherman123]

Often when I observe these controversies I'm struck at how applicable the Talmudic principle of Dina De-Malkhuta Dina really is, at least in the hypothetical. The phrase, which means more or less that 'The Law of the Land is the Law', is of core importance in Halackha. This Rabbinic distinction is biblically cited to the sojourns of the Israelites in Babylon when Samuel instructed them to reconcile themselves to the new authorities and furthermore that they must obey their laws. This principle, this law, has been constantly debated and evaluated for thousands of years as Jewish communities have been confronted with new situations, governments, and legislation.

Broadly speaking there are several absolute restrictions on this principle, most of them are fairly obvious for example laws which restrict observance or ritual law must not be obeyed, laws which are explicitly at odds with the Torah (even then it can be fuzzy), etc. However this is only applicable if the Jewish community is being forced to adhere to something, not if they are mere observers or being asked to forego something that is not 'mandatory'. For example while marriage between an Uncle and Niece is permitted by the Torah, a Rabbi would not authorize such a marriage in a civil jurisdiction which prohibits such unions.

Bringing this home the issue of same sex marriage and the attendant legislation with regard to 'hate speech' is something most of the Rabbis I know (who are Orthodox) have had little trouble navigating despite their personal opposition. In a situation like this I'm quite confident they would likely obey the prohibition (there is no law mandating that one preach about homosexuality), or they would accept the revocation from the prison and return to their congregation.

Sometimes I wish that Christian faith groups had a flexible principle like this. It would make navigating the changing cultural landscape and the shifting political climate easier and far less controversial. Just my two cent contribution.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Sure. In the proper place. A government facility where freedom from religion exists is not that place.

Such Orwellian doublethink is not unexpected, given the source.

I think it is obvious to any rational mind that religious freedom is attacked, not upheld, by prohibiting a chaplain from freely and honestly expressing tenets of his religion that are directly relevant to his function, because those tenets are deemed to be politically-incorrect.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Such Orwellian doublethink is not unexpected, given the source.

Just because you don't understand what I said doesn't mean it's not accurate. It is.

I think it is obvious to any rational mind that religious freedom is attacked, not upheld, by prohibiting a chaplain from freely and honestly expressing tenets of his religion that are directly relevant to his function, because those tenets are deemed to be politically-incorrect.

Incorrect. To any rational mind, when spouting religious tenets in a government facility, going against current law, that rational mind will understand that doing so shall be prohibited.

 

[Hard Truth]

Such Orwellian doublethink is not unexpected, given the source.

I think it is obvious to any rational mind that religious freedom is attacked, not upheld, by prohibiting a chaplain from freely and honestly expressing tenets of his religion that are directly relevant to his function, because those tenets are deemed to be politically-incorrect.

Religious freedom doesn't include guaranteed access to what is literally a captive audience of kids below the age of legal consent to proselytize and preach to. (or insult) If the inmates want religious counseling or leaders to conduct rituals that should be provided. In my view, if a counselor or leader is invited to visit by an inmate or group of inmates then the content of their conversation or rituals should not be censored.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just because you don't understand what I said doesn't mean it's not accurate. It is.



Incorrect. To any rational mind, when spouting religious tenets in a government facility, going against current law, that rational mind will understand that doing so shall be prohibited.

The First Amendment is the current law.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The First Amendment is the current law.

That's true. Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

That's true. Freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

There is no “right” to not be exposed to the expression of beliefs that one finds disagreeable. Such a “right” would be irreconcilable with the genuine rights that are explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

There is no “right” to not be exposed to the expression of beliefs that one finds disagreeable. Such a “right” would be irreconcilable with the genuine rights that are explicitly affirmed in the First Amendment.

No, it's not about disagreeable views. That's irrelevant. The state cannot foster an environment that gives the impression that a religion is being sanctioned when those religious views are being presented.

 

[ludin]

THEIR needs, not his need to evangelise. He is employed as a Chaplain NOT a Minister. This isn't rocket science and you are far wide of the mark here Goshin.

what do you think a chaplain is? he is a minister. so therefore he will use his religious views to help serve those he is ministering to.
your right this isn't rocket science and you are far wide of the mark.

 

[ludin]

No, it's not about disagreeable views. That's irrelevant. The state cannot foster an environment that gives the impression that a religion is being sanctioned when those religious views are being presented.

then they probably shouldn't hire religious ministers to do their work. if they do hire religious ministers then the state is not allowed to infringe on their beliefs.
it is against the constitution for the state to do so or force them to violate their beliefs.