To all Christians who think that they are being persecuted in America[W:610] (1 Viewer)

[roguenuke]

1. It's what came up when I did a quick search

2. That's relative. I'm sure it's religious to the...you know, religious.

3. If the school let's kids wear a MegaDeath T, then they should have allowed the "Homosexuality is wrong" shirt.

Megadeath doesn't target specific people while the tshirt the girl was wearing did. And the tshirt countered a positive message the school is trying to promote, tolerance.

Would it be okay for a student to be sent home for wearing a tshirt that claimed bullying others is a right and had some random verse on the back from any religion remotely supporting that concept?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

I'm not religious. And, I most certainly never will be. So, I don't really care--in fact, I'd probably cheerlead the effort to strip religion of many current rights with which I disagree, like child mental abuse.

But, from what I read many religious people do not feel like you do.

https://www.moodymedia.org/articles/demise-religious-freedom-america/

A subjective opinion that they can believe, but provide little evidence for.

The woman mentioned, Angela McCaskill, was demoted from a diversity position in a private school. While some may not approve (I don't) as has been pointed out when it comes to other private entities firing gays, especially in places with no protection against such action, they are a private school.

The rest are angry preacher blog opinions. I'm willing to bet that preacher would not say it should be okay for someone to refuse to make a cake for or photograph an interracial or interfaith wedding based on religious reasons. He would very likely insist there are no such religious beliefs.

He even tried to compare these things to religious accommodations on the job, something that many Christian employees get.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

Just curious about your opinion about students not being allowed to wear antigay shirts. Do you feel the same way about progay shirts too? Is that a topic that neither the student body nor the school should be allowed to express an opinion on?

Where should we draw the line on freedom of expression in learning institutions?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The school should be allowed to set reasonable dress codes that fit a goal of preventing violence or targeting of people. Antitolerance messages (which is what this tshirt actually proclaimed it was with a religious verse on the back) can be banned because a reasonable person could see this as trying to counter a message of tolerance in the school.

Should the school be able to send someone home to change, suspend someone for wearing a similar tshirt with a passage about not allowing a witch to live, or women remaining silent or not teaching men, or against interfaith marriage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roguenuke]

I do not know what your religion is nor do I care. But, I have posted several links to cases where certain groups of people have had some of their religious rights restricted over the past 50 years.

No they haven't since you can't prove those things are actual rights that were taken away.

By the way, restrictions on rights happen and are different than having your rights taken away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinqy]

I'm not arguing the whys or hows, I am only refuting AJ's claim that Christians' right to do things have not changed in 50 years. When I went to school in 1970's, Christmas was celebrated and religious icons were allowed.

And how was that a right?

 

[calamity]

And how was that a right?

How was it not?

 

[blackjack50]

I vehemently dislike religion for cause. It gets the dislike it does because it has earned it, for the same reason that sexism and racism and other disgusting positions and beliefs get vehement dislike. If that's hate, fine, but it's warranted hate.

Whatever floats your boat sweetums. If you want to judge people based on their belief in a power that encourages unconditional love and selfless acts and gives them a sense of purpose and fulfillment not provide by the all mighty Atheismo, while simultaneously pretending that your irrational hatred and judgement of religious people's based on their religion is somehow as justified as despising someone who is racist or sexist or homophobic or whatever... more power too you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cephus]

Some people see that change as...well, a "War on Christmas." Perhaps they are correct.

There is no war on Christmas, that's idiotic. Christmas is 99% a secular holiday whether the religious like it or not. Having it celebrated as the secular holiday that it is isn't a war on Christianity, it's a recognition of reality.

 

[pinqy]

How was it not?

How is using government facilities to further the beliefs of your religion a right? One of us is misreading the Constitution.

 

[calamity]

How is using government facilities to further the beliefs of your religion a right? One of us is misreading the Constitution.

Who paid most of the funds for that facility? Christians. Yep. That's who.

Where I grew up, the hood was 99% Christians, probably 80% of them Catholic. So, yeah--denying them the right to have their kids indoctrinated with Christianized pagan folk songs denies them their rights. Just ask them.

 

[Cephus]

Who paid most of the funds for that facility? Christians. Yep. That's who.

Where I grew up, the hood was 99% Christians, probably 80% of them Catholic. So, yeah--denying them the right to have their kids indoctrinated with Christianized pagan folk songs denies them their rights. Just ask them.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The United States has a Constitutionally mandated secular government. It makes laws entirely without respect to religion, period. Once you pay your taxes, you lose control of what your particular money does. The government is not going to cater to your individual beliefs, nor should they. If you want to teach your ridiculous religion at home or in your churches, feel free. If you expect the government to push your stupid beliefs, you're in for a shock.

 

[calamity]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The United States has a Constitutionally mandated secular government. It makes laws entirely without respect to religion, period. Once you pay your taxes, you lose control of what your particular money does. The government is not going to cater to your individual beliefs, nor should they. If you want to teach your ridiculous religion at home or in your churches, feel free. If you expect the government to push your stupid beliefs, you're in for a shock.

I doubt the Christians would agree with you on that.

 

[Cephus]

I doubt the Christians would agree with you on that.

It doesn't matter what the Christians say, it matters what the Constitution says.

 

[calamity]

It doesn't matter what the Christians say, it matters what the Constitution says.

:lol: Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

 

[trouble13]

The school should be allowed to set reasonable dress codes that fit a goal of preventing violence or targeting of people. Antitolerance messages (which is what this tshirt actually proclaimed it was with a religious verse on the back) can be banned because a reasonable person could see this as trying to counter a message of tolerance in the school.

Should the school be able to send someone home to change, suspend someone for wearing a similar tshirt with a passage about not allowing a witch to live, or women remaining silent or not teaching men, or against interfaith marriage?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I cant say where i fall on this. I generally agree with everything you said but i also think the freedom of expression is important. Censorship in schools is problematic but so is inciting violence. Im kind of torn where to draw a line.

I will say this though if gay rights is such a volatile subject that they are telling people they are not allowed to openly oppose it than nobody should be openly promoting it either. That is just as antagonostic as the antigay stuff. Its a topic the school should stay out of alltogether or take on openly giving everyone the freedom to weigh in with their opinions.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Cephus]

:lol: Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

That's the reality. I know you wouldn't know reality if it smacked you in the face, but that's how it is. If these supposed Christians want to change the Constitution, they are welcome to do so. Let me know when they've succeeded. I won't be holding my breath for these whiny little morons.

 

[trouble13]

I doubt the Christians would agree with you on that.

Im an athesist and i dont agree with him on that. The constitution prevents the gov from telling people what religion they must believe in and thats all. There is no constitutional basis for removing any religious influences from the gov. Seperation of state and religion has been grossly missinterupted by many.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[pinqy]

Im an athesist and i dont agree with him on that. The constitution prevents the gov from telling people what religion they must believe in and thats all. There is no constitutional basis for removing any religious influences from the gov. Seperation of state and religion has been grossly missinterupted by many.

Only what people believe in and that's all? Not what they do or don't do? Some religions believe that men and women should always wear head coverings. Can the government pass a law that all people must have their head covered in public? That's not dictating belief.

 

[trouble13]

Only what people believe in and that's all? Not what they do or don't do? Some religions believe that men and women should always wear head coverings. Can the government pass a law that all people must have their head covered in public? That's not dictating belief.

Its not black and white because the reason for the law matters. The state may not establish a particular religion and demand we all must follow it. The state can tell everyone they must wear headcovering if they can show just cause for requiring it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[RAMOSS]

So you can't point it out nor can you list any rights you lost, got it.

If I remember correct, he's in England.

 

[calamity]

Im an athesist and i dont agree with him on that. The constitution prevents the gov from telling people what religion they must believe in and thats all. There is no constitutional basis for removing any religious influences from the gov. Seperation of state and religion has been grossly missinterupted by many.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I'm atheist and hated all the Christian crap I had to deal with when in school, but I can understand how a community consisting of a vast majority of Christians would want it that way. I don't see how people can argue that banning Christmas pageants and Easter celebrations in the public buildings which they pay for and support is not denying them their rights to practice their religion. But, then again, when I see who here is saying it--I am not surprised.

 

[pinqy]

Its not black and white because the reason for the law matters. The state may not establish a particular religion and demand we all must follow it. The state can tell everyone they must wear headcovering if they can show just cause for requiring it.

hmmm what happened to "The constitution prevents the gov from telling people what religion they must believe in and thats all."?? But I wasn't talking about "establishing a religion" in the sense of an official religion (which is the sense most of those who hold to the "separation is only one way" theory accept) but rather the majority of the people voting for the precepts of their religion through the democratic process.

That's religious influence on government...which you said was not a violation of the 1st ammendmetn.

 

[pinqy]

I don't see how people can argue that banning Christmas pageants and Easter celebrations in the public buildings which they pay for and support is not denying them their rights to practice their religion. .

IF and ONLY IF, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Animists, Shinto, Buddhist's, Sikh's, Jainists, etc are all allowed to use the public buildings for their celebrations, you might have a point.

But since, traditionally, it was the government supporting Christianity over other religions....well, nobody has that right.

 

[calamity]

hmmm what happened to "The constitution prevents the gov from telling people what religion they must believe in and thats all."?? But I wasn't talking about "establishing a religion" in the sense of an official religion (which is the sense most of those who hold to the "separation is only one way" theory accept) but rather the majority of the people voting for the precepts of their religion through the democratic process.

That's religious influence on government...which you said was not a violation of the 1st ammendmetn.

Not the point...the question AJ asked was which rights have been eliminated from religious people. Removing religious holiday celebrations and icons from schools would be the biggest one in my lifetime.

The whys of it all are not part of this argument. We all know the why is a constitutional battle.

 

[calamity]

IF and ONLY IF, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Animists, Shinto, Buddhist's, Sikh's, Jainists, etc are all allowed to use the public buildings for their celebrations, you might have a point.

But since, traditionally, it was the government supporting Christianity over other religions....well, nobody has that right.

Again. That it is or is not an inalienable right itself is not the issue. The fact that the right was taken away is. And, the fact that celebrating Christmas and Easter in public schools was at one time a right of those so religiously inclined is not in question.