You are completely missing the point. The argument is not about the right of free speech or freedom of, or freedom from religion. Hence my response to illustrate that. Obviously it wasn't clear enough. The issue is a catholic school was intolerant and discriminating against its pupils. The right to believe what anyone wants to is quite a separate and different issue to intolerance. Your argument steps over the failure of a church school to get its homophobic message across, weird as it is and intolerant as it is, without verbally and personally abusing children. There is no need to talk in terms of making stuff illegal. That's just another emotional siding you've run off on. Most institutions over time adopt a responsible and intelligent ethos. Not going out of their way to verbally abuse, insult and discriminate against children in their care might have been a good start a long time ago for that religious school not to mention religion in general. You seem to think its ok for a catholic school in this case to be grossly offensive against certain groups of children in its care merely because of a freedom of religion. You're saying it is intolerant to object to intolerant speech because the intolerance is religious belief . I don't think that's ever right. What's next? Will your "freedom of religion" allow for a catholic school to groom their pupils for potential sexual assault by visiting bishops? After all, they have religious freedom!
It doesnt say that anywhere in the bible, so they cant do that and be protected under "freedom of religion" In fact its clear that when a priest or any man sexually assaults a boy, he is to be put to death, but the government doesnt give us that much religious freedom to go that far.
Actually that is exactly what the argument boils down to. The RIGHT of the catholic school to state it's belief, especially on its own property. There really isn't a rational argument against this, what they did was well within their rights. taking a page out of the Clinton playbook, you have essentially diluted this argument into: what is the definition of intolerant? Guess what, even if the church's positions were technically intolerant.. they are still ALLOWED to state them. And they are still ALLOWED to mandate the students hear their position, AT THEIR OWN PRIVATE SCHOOL. The students are allowed to disagree. But, IF they don't think the anti-gay school, they attend, should be ALLOWED to state its anti-gay position, or shout them down, or refuse to listen, then they are also being intolerant. Why? because they attend a religious school that holds an anti-homosexual position. You made this up. In fact, re-read the article:http://www.startribune.com/local/146031865.html?refer=y.. the students asked the church reps questions and then got pissed at the answers. lol. The church didn't personally attack anyone. On your very first post of that thread: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=240954&highlight=religion, you were obviously implying that they shouldn't be ALLOWED to call that meeting. You have admitted as much since. Regardless of how, what matters is you don't want the school to be able to hold that assembly. that's wrong and it is a 1st amendment issue. I don't think, I KNOW that it is ok for the catholic school to state their beliefs, intolerant or not, in the manner that they did. I didn't say the students were intolerant for objecting or disagreeing. Unless, as I wrote above, they try to shut them up or prevent them from stating said beliefs. I said YOU were intolerant for implying they shouldn't be ALLOWED to do it. I know you are going to argue that the church's positions are intolerant, and it can't possibly be intolerant to object to them. Objection to them is not what is intolerant, attempting to silence or prevent them from stating their belief, is. You are being hugely obstinate.. so how the fuck else can i explain this? Real douchy comment. Obviously common law trumps religious belief. Otherwise we would have jihadi's running around blowing shit up cause its what they believe. Don't be silly.
This intolerance crap is completely misrepresented. Just as math teachers are intolerant of wrong answers... Almost all religions by their nature can be called "intolerant" Either there is a Creator or there is not... on side can be said to be intolerant of the other side. Atheists are intolerant too. (if ET is an indication Atheists are the most offensively intolerant) But, Americans support Atheists right to be intolerant. American was founded on the idea that you have a right to believe what you want to believe and you have a very broad and powerful right to express your opinion. (contrary to what leftists are saying these days) The right to free exercise of religion is so strong in america that the Sup Ct protected santeria with its animal sacrifices. -------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IIâA-2.[â ] The principle that government may not enact laws that suppress religious belief or practice is so well understood that few violations are recorded in our opinions. Cf. McDaniel v. Paty, 435 U. S. 618 (1978); Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U. S. 67 (1953). Concerned that this fundamental nonpersecution principle of the First Amendment was implicated here, however, we granted certiorari. 503 U. S. 935 (1992). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...=2,5&as_vis=1&case=975414503455261754&scilh=0
I agree Jem.. i have now allowed myself to be dragged into a fight over fucking semantics. Bottom line: the school in that example was completely within its rights to hold that mandatory assembly. A desire to prevent them from doing so is anti 1st Amendment.
Nobody is saying they weren't within their rights to hold mandatory meetings. How many strawmen are you going to build in order to dodge around the fact that above all, that catholic school made intolerant discriminatory abusive speech to children. You religious apologists make me laugh. You'll do anything to avoid having to admit the fact that a church school was acting like a bunch of Nazis, but prefer to hide behind irrelevant smoke screens of private property and rights to religious faith, rather than admit they are first and foremost voicing homophobic and bigoted beliefs.
Yeah, we definitely are avoiding admitting that a church school was putting children on trains and sending them off to concentration camps to be executed. Maybe you should just stop talking right now, stu, because you do realize this thead is against people who shoot other people because they don't believe in what they do and you are defending those people. To use your "nazi" reference, you are behaving like a nazi supporter. Basically deflecting and trying to point the finger at the Catholics. (No different than the way Hitler did with the Jews.)
I'm not just gonna keep going in circles explaining the same shit to you over and over, obstinate stu. How can stating their beliefs be considered intolerant at their own institution? if someone finds them intolerant, they shouldn't be there. Why the fuck is this so hard to understand? they went to the school the school didn't go to them. This is analogous to an atheist teen attending church with his parents and getting upset that god was mentioned at mass. Is that the church's problem? if you attend a religious establishment, do they need to refrain from stating beliefs because someone could get offended, or do the offended need to refrain from attending? You absolutely implied that they should not be able to hold mandatory meetings, captive audience in your words, and state their beliefs (which you and some of the students took offense to). Now you are denying that you ever did that. lol that was the only reason I quoted you in the first place, are you really denying that now? If so, what were you arguing in that thread then stewie? oh and those 'irrelevant smokescreens' are fucking Constitutionally granted rights.. if what they (the church) did was abusive as you say, why does the law protect them?
AS a presumably rational adult you really shouldn't be struggling this hard. Irrespective of free speech, the catholic school's sermonizing was intolerant. It's that simple. By the reaction it got it was also unexpected. To avoid admitting it, you first said I said things I haven't, inferred stuff I do not infer, then you seem to think hollering 'free speech' at it will make it not what it is it. It wonât. Then to cap it all, you've said objecting to intolerance like that is itself being intolerant. All of which range from plain wrong to ridiculous. The catholic church school preached their intolerant beliefs in a verbally abusive manner at their pupils and it back fired. Children got exttremely upset and objected to it. Those catholic preachers responsible for making the offensive remarks later sounded like they suddenly became more aware of how offensive they'd been and were thinking twice about doing it again. Those kind of realizations change such institutions and drag them out of the dark ages where they tend to unthinkingly languish. No need for you to start making up nonsense about me wanting things made illegal. Bigoted discriminatory intolerant speech is still bigoted discriminatory intolerant speech whether it is made freely as part of religion and beliefs, or however else it is dispensed. To say objecting to it is itself being intolerant as you have, is plainly absurd.
stu(pidity) The meme of a thread killer. over 5500 posts of nothing but venom towards believers. What underlies such maladaptive behavior? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=4133609