So now they were personally insulting students.. personally. The bottom line is the church has every right to call a mandatory meeting and state its positions, AT ITS OWN INSTITUTION, indifferent to the possibility that certain individuals will be insulted or feel bad. There was no abuse as you state, and you certainly were implying that this shouldn't be allowed. And you are right the KKK can't force anyone to join and listen to them, but if one does decide to join and doesn't want to attend their meetings because they disagree, then why did they join? i just can't make this point any more simple: the church is openly anti-gay, if you are a gay teen and attend their institution it is possible, if not likely, that this position will be made known to you. religion is part of their curriculum, and the anti gay position is part of their religion. Sorry that's the way it is.. if the student is unable to accept this position because they feel personally attacked, they should attend another school. If their parents force them to attend, then they need to take it up with their parents. You can't actually expect that the church, or any private organization, should not discuss or be forced to CHANGE its positions because they might offend someone, when it was founded by people who promote and embrace those very ideas. And if you do expect that, then you are being both unrealistic and intolerant.
How to they turn off young people? Well, telling them to abstain from premarital sex while raping them probably sends a mixed message.:eek:
yea that is some sick, twisted shit that happened and probably continues to happen. I am only defending the church's right to preach their own ideas and faith AT their own institutions, as I would for any private organization.
..but don't defend the right of students to respond themselves at the institution to some sick, twisted shit you defend a church's right to preach.
You must not be reading my posts bud.. I clearly stated that I had no problem with the students disagreeing in the appropriate manner. My problem is with guys like you implying or outright saying that they (the church) should not be able to hold a mandatory meeting because others feel that their beliefs are wrong and/or insulting. I defend the church's right to state their positions AT their own private institutions, whether i agree with them or not. You obviously do not, thankfully it isn't up to you.
Right so, is it that you agreeing with my argument or trying not to concede to it by saying I'm stating or implying things I have and do not? You agree with a catholic church school's right to personalize, verbally offensively abuse and demonize their pupils against other classmates, but you donât condemn it , but rather your position is they should just be free do it.
Would you consider this implying or stating? "A mandatory assembly is not a meeting where people are taking part of their own free will. If the catholic church can do that, then so should PETA and the KKK, when they too can be resisted by school children obliged to attend." - stu Clearly u don't think they should have been able to call that meeting. My position was/is/will remain that they are free to do so, and rightfully so. Also, I never said that the students can't disagree. I defended the analogy because it doesn't make sense to join an organization that you are at odds with, it is ignorant to assume that they are going to change because of you, and it is intolerant to attempt and force change upon them; in this case, when it goes against their religious beliefs AT their private, religious school. Example, gay student attends catholic school - school calls a mandatory meeting at which the immoralities of homosexuality are discussed - gay student objects and claims he was personally attacked. School is then painted as intolerant, when in reality it is the gay student that is intolerant and out of line. Would u agree that the gay student is wrong in this example?