It's pretty easy to just assume a whole contingent of people are awful if you spend too much time on the internet.
DeSantis signs law ensuring student's right to prayer before sporting events
4,572 Views |
84 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by one MEEN Ag
And that is true also.Frok said:
It's pretty easy to just assume a whole contingent of people are awful if you spend too much time on the internet.
Sometimes I wish the non believers would visit a church just to see what really goes on.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc said:
Unfortunately a lot of what you posted is true.
All I can say is this God created you and loves you. And this Christian loves you too.
Love me in a "Well, I don't agree with your views, but acknowledge and appreciate that you are doing your best and that your views help you make sense of the world" kinda way. Or love me in a begrudging "Well God says love has to be the baseline so I'll oblige even though I think you are in league with Satan trying to destroy American Christian culture to make room for a shallow hedonistic dystopia." kinda way?
kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Unfortunately a lot of what you posted is true.
All I can say is this God created you and loves you. And this Christian loves you too.
Love me in a "Well, I don't agree with your views, but acknowledge and appreciate that you are doing your best and that your views help you make sense of the world" kinda way. Or love me in a begrudging "Well God says love has to be the baseline so I'll oblige even though I think you are in league with Satan trying to destroy American Christian culture to make room for a shallow hedonistic dystopia." kinda way?
I love you because you are made in God's image and also you are my neighbor Biblically.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
there are two things that jump out at me here. one, some of this can only be written if you are unable to accept that some folks are serious and sincere in their beliefs. and two, you seem unwilling to accept that other people have a different definition of love and different hierarchy of values (re: happiness) from you.
guilty. and when you see this in light of what i wrote above, you can see how absurd it would be for me to be.Quote:
you can't be happy for someone that doesn't believe in God.
More like love you in a: if you and I were blood feud enemies for a few hundred years and I came across you bleeding in a ditch, I would - at great personal risk - stop, bind your wounds, take you to a hospital, and pay your medical bills kind of way.kurt vonnegut said:dermdoc said:
Unfortunately a lot of what you posted is true.
All I can say is this God created you and loves you. And this Christian loves you too.
Love me in a "Well, I don't agree with your views, but acknowledge and appreciate that you are doing your best and that your views help you make sense of the world" kinda way. Or love me in a begrudging "Well God says love has to be the baseline so I'll oblige even though I think you are in league with Satan trying to destroy American Christian culture to make room for a shallow hedonistic dystopia." kinda way?
Christians believe - or should I would argue - that love without action and sacrifice isn't really love at all. Or at least it's not the kind of love that we believe God showed to us, and that we should in turn show to others - especially those with whom we have disagreements (and probably don't like).
Personally I've always found these performative prayers to be very helpful in identifying other heathens as we prairie dog look at each other over the crowd of bowed heads. Makes it easier to plan our next meeting, that's for sure.
I'm left with the impression that the Christians on this website are requesting a very one sided relationship with secularists. This sounds like a relationship whereby the secular members may not be expected to accept Christianity, but are expected to respect Christianity, revere its position and influence, and accept its position of privilege. And the Christian members are not only permitted to reject secular values, but also to actively condemn those values, marginalize them, censor them, and degrade them.Zobel said:
there are two things that jump out at me here. one, some of this can only be written if you are unable to accept that some folks are serious and sincere in their beliefs. and two, you seem unwilling to accept that other people have a different definition of love and different hierarchy of values (re: happiness) from you.guilty. and when you see this in light of what i wrote above, you can see how absurd it would be for me to be.Quote:
you can't be happy for someone that doesn't believe in God.
I think that I am the one that understands that other people have different definitions of love and different values. And I think you are the one that rejects any different definitions on account of non compliance with unquestionable dogmatic truth. What room for understanding is there with your set of values? What room is there for empathy or mutual respect? I think this is why we find ourselves in this contentious spot.
In your own set of values, where and how do you place modesty? Modesty in the sense of being humble in the estimation of your own ability and intelligence and morality.
well, what is said on an internet forum in the context of debating basic principles is always going to be confrontational where differences exist. and when those differences are real or significant at the worldview level, you're going to run into an impasse.
you don't have any affirmative beliefs about God, so you don't care what anyone believes about God one way or another. it's kind of like how i feel about PGA tour golf. it isn't that i respect your views so much as it absolutely does not move the needle for me. im happy for you and glad that you like golf and find enjoyment in it. basically how you feel about me and my faith, right?
there is a difference between affirming the truth and not having understanding. if i have a firm grasp on facts, there's no "understanding" for falsehood. if i have two apples and you tell me i have one, "understanding" your position is kind of a waste of time. no one does that. you don't do that.
so "room for understanding" is seeing differences. mutual respect is not precluded by that at all. i can disagree with you without disrespecting you.
where does understanding / empathy / respect enter into want the best for someone else? for example, is it disrespectful to tell a loved one you wish they would not smoke because you know it causes cancer?
again a small amount of irony in that Christian claims are not related to their person at all...they're fundamentally outside of "what I think". contrast that with our current secular view which is the radical opposite everything is referred back to the self and self-experience.
the two worldviews are mutually exclusive and to a large extent incompatible. there's no small amount of irony in your last sentence here. how do you think Christians feel about their views on sexuality?Quote:
I'm left with the impression that the Christians on this website are requesting a very one sided relationship with secularists. This sounds like a relationship whereby the secular members may not be expected to accept Christianity, but are expected to respect Christianity, revere its position and influence, and accept its position of privilege. And the Christian members are not only permitted to reject secular values, but also to actively condemn those values, marginalize them, censor them, and degrade them.
in a discussion like this the person with the fewest requirements "wins" by nature of being the most accepting. that doesn't tell you anything about their ability to show empathy or respect, it just shows that they have the fewest things they care about.Quote:
I think that I am the one that understands that other people have different definitions of love and different values. And I think you are the one that rejects any different definitions on account of non compliance with unquestionable dogmatic truth. What room for understanding is there with your set of values? What room is there for empathy or mutual respect? I think this is why we find ourselves in this contentious spot.
you don't have any affirmative beliefs about God, so you don't care what anyone believes about God one way or another. it's kind of like how i feel about PGA tour golf. it isn't that i respect your views so much as it absolutely does not move the needle for me. im happy for you and glad that you like golf and find enjoyment in it. basically how you feel about me and my faith, right?
there is a difference between affirming the truth and not having understanding. if i have a firm grasp on facts, there's no "understanding" for falsehood. if i have two apples and you tell me i have one, "understanding" your position is kind of a waste of time. no one does that. you don't do that.
so "room for understanding" is seeing differences. mutual respect is not precluded by that at all. i can disagree with you without disrespecting you.
where does understanding / empathy / respect enter into want the best for someone else? for example, is it disrespectful to tell a loved one you wish they would not smoke because you know it causes cancer?
we'd probably call that the virtue of humility, and it's the probably the chief of Christian virtues.Quote:
In your own set of values, where and how do you place modesty? Modesty in the sense of being humble in the estimation of your own ability and intelligence and morality.
again a small amount of irony in that Christian claims are not related to their person at all...they're fundamentally outside of "what I think". contrast that with our current secular view which is the radical opposite everything is referred back to the self and self-experience.
There are people on this forum, and in real life, who take Christianity very seriously. Your general interaction with American cultural Christianity out in the wild is weak cultural window dressing. So its easy to say, "Why can't they compromise on X, they've already compromised on Y before over and over again?"kurt vonnegut said:I'm left with the impression that the Christians on this website are requesting a very one sided relationship with secularists. This sounds like a relationship whereby the secular members may not be expected to accept Christianity, but are expected to respect Christianity, revere its position and influence, and accept its position of privilege. And the Christian members are not only permitted to reject secular values, but also to actively condemn those values, marginalize them, censor them, and degrade them.Zobel said:
there are two things that jump out at me here. one, some of this can only be written if you are unable to accept that some folks are serious and sincere in their beliefs. and two, you seem unwilling to accept that other people have a different definition of love and different hierarchy of values (re: happiness) from you.guilty. and when you see this in light of what i wrote above, you can see how absurd it would be for me to be.Quote:
you can't be happy for someone that doesn't believe in God.
I think that I am the one that understands that other people have different definitions of love and different values. And I think you are the one that rejects any different definitions on account of non compliance with unquestionable dogmatic truth. What room for understanding is there with your set of values? What room is there for empathy or mutual respect? I think this is why we find ourselves in this contentious spot.
In your own set of values, where and how do you place modesty? Modesty in the sense of being humble in the estimation of your own ability and intelligence and morality.
And this is the brass tacks, if someone is serious about upholding Christian morality, and someone else is serious about seizing morality for themselves their really isn't any room for compromise. There is a march for increasing permissibility in society versus holding a devout, absolute belief against that increased permissibility.
So there are really only three options on this cultural landscape.
A) Live like oil and water where each side claims geographic areas to live out their life.
B) Fight about it through law creation and law enforcement, relying on having the voting moral majority enforcing their moral beliefs.
C) Have a dictator who decides for everyone the laws that shall be observed.
The two main issues at heart are that:
-America no longer has a majority population of moral foundation to build society off of. It has a plurastic moral underpinning as it becomes increasingly secular as well as see immigrant groups grow that bring their own moral, religious, and legal frameworks.
-America's historical legal framework is seen as cumbersome to the liberal minded. Laws are now selectively applied to promote a worldview very different than the ones that created the laws.
And this is the crux of the 'culture war'. It manifests itself from praying at a football game to abortion law to why does target even sell trans clothes?
Quote:
America's historical legal framework is seen as cumbersome to the liberal minded. Laws are now selectively applied to promote a worldview very different than the ones that created the laws.
This is an amazing statement given how conservative judges and state legislatures have been running roughshod over state decisis and existing laws and regulations.
is your assertion here that state legislatures cannot make laws that supersede existing laws?
**introduces root of the issue claims that specifically deal with normative ethics***Sapper Redux said:Quote:
America's historical legal framework is seen as cumbersome to the liberal minded. Laws are now selectively applied to promote a worldview very different than the ones that created the laws.
This is an amazing statement given how conservative judges and state legislatures have been running roughshod over state decisis and existing laws and regulations.
**Sapper proceeds to pot shot about descriptive ethical claims**
Never change Sapper. Can't have any discussion about morality above whatever you look up and see out your window. Can't have any discussion about how people should act beyond whatever travesty you see being enacted. Those are not the same. You know better.
Link?Sapper Redux said:Quote:
America's historical legal framework is seen as cumbersome to the liberal minded. Laws are now selectively applied to promote a worldview very different than the ones that created the laws.
This is an amazing statement given how conservative judges and state legislatures have been running roughshod over state decisis and existing laws and regulations.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
And then Sapper drops in with the philosophical equivalent of "how long have you been beating your wife?"Sapper Redux said:Didn't Uganda just make being gay a capital offense? Is that what you mean by a "shining beacon"?Quote:
The African Christian churches are shining beacons to the rest of the world right now if you're a conservative Christian.
Just for fun, how do you feel about these laws? What do you think should be done about it?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Just to be clear, the whole impetus of this discussion was public prayer at a football game. A football game that is an entirely optional event for everyone involved. A prayer that asks for everyone to enjoy the game, asks that no one gets hurt, asks that everyone gets home safely, and that there are no hard feelings over the outcome. All this followed by a brief mention of the name Jesus Christ. So I guess I just have no idea why this is offensive, and why that act makes someone feel persecuted, lesser, inferior, or upset in any way whatsoever.
If you're offended by street preachers telling you that you're going to hell, then I get it. If you're offended by pro-life activists with big posters with gruesome images, then I get it. If you're upset about the prevailing right wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community largely driven by Christians, then I get it. Not saying I 100% agree, but I understand why someone would be upset about these things. I just can't wrap my head around someone getting triggered over a goodwill prayer at an optional community function
If you're offended by street preachers telling you that you're going to hell, then I get it. If you're offended by pro-life activists with big posters with gruesome images, then I get it. If you're upset about the prevailing right wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community largely driven by Christians, then I get it. Not saying I 100% agree, but I understand why someone would be upset about these things. I just can't wrap my head around someone getting triggered over a goodwill prayer at an optional community function
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Just to clarify, the African Churches have been awesome on the international scene. In the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, and the Lutheran Church, the African churches have been reasonable and steady hands while churches in the West are overreacting to the culture wars in one way or another. They also are some of the most active players in the ecumenical scene promoting unity across denominations. So yes, they are a shining beacon and Christianity is blessed to have themSapper Redux said:Didn't Uganda just make being gay a capital offense? Is that what you mean by a "shining beacon"?Quote:
The African Christian churches are shining beacons to the rest of the world right now if you're a conservative Christian.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02 said:
Just to be clear, the whole impetus of this discussion was public prayer at a football game. A football game that is an entirely optional event for everyone involved. A prayer that asks for everyone to enjoy the game, asks that no one gets hurt, asks that everyone gets home safely, and that there are no hard feelings over the outcome. All this followed by a brief mention of the name Jesus Christ. So I guess I just have no idea why this is offensive, and why that act makes someone feel persecuted, lesser, inferior, or upset in any way whatsoever.
If you're offended by street preachers telling you that you're going to hell, then I get it. If you're offended by pro-life activists with big posters with gruesome images, then I get it. If you're upset about the prevailing right wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community largely driven by Christians, then I get it. Not saying I 100% agree, but I understand why someone would be upset about these things. I just can't wrap my head around someone getting triggered over a goodwill prayer at an optional community function
I think being optional is irrelevant. What I think is relevant is public versus private. Getting a driver's license is optional, that isn't justification for the DMV to play Church of Satan adds in the waiting room tv. Church of Satan adds are inappropriate in that setting. Not playing Church of Satan adds at the DMV isn't a removal of their free speech, is it?
Again, I am in no way triggered or offended by a prayer at a school game. I want that to be 100% clear. My position is that the game is not the appropriate setting for the prayer in my opinion. And if the rest of the country disagrees, then fine. . . .but, if we are going to allow Christian prayer, we have to allow 'any' prayer. Triggered Christians at the first game where the church of Satan gives the opening prayer is the inevitable result here.
What I don't understand is why the prayer has to be an official part of the event. In a previous post, I listed a bunch of ways in which Christians can and should pray both publicly and privately. Literally, no one is saying that Christians can't pray before a game. But, that isn't what Christians want. They don't want to pray before a game. They want their prayer to be publicly recognized as part of the program. A prayer to themselves, with their friends or family, or with the entire stadium isn't sufficient. It has to be led by a school employee being paid by tax dollars. It has to be officially recognized as the accepted value set. That is 100% what this is about. Power and Pride. Nothing else.
kurt vonnegut said:ramblin_ag02 said:
Just to be clear, the whole impetus of this discussion was public prayer at a football game. A football game that is an entirely optional event for everyone involved. A prayer that asks for everyone to enjoy the game, asks that no one gets hurt, asks that everyone gets home safely, and that there are no hard feelings over the outcome. All this followed by a brief mention of the name Jesus Christ. So I guess I just have no idea why this is offensive, and why that act makes someone feel persecuted, lesser, inferior, or upset in any way whatsoever.
If you're offended by street preachers telling you that you're going to hell, then I get it. If you're offended by pro-life activists with big posters with gruesome images, then I get it. If you're upset about the prevailing right wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community largely driven by Christians, then I get it. Not saying I 100% agree, but I understand why someone would be upset about these things. I just can't wrap my head around someone getting triggered over a goodwill prayer at an optional community function
I think being optional is irrelevant. What I think is relevant is public versus private. Getting a driver's license is optional, that isn't justification for the DMV to play Church of Satan adds in the waiting room tv. Church of Satan adds are inappropriate in that setting. Not playing Church of Satan adds at the DMV isn't a removal of their free speech, is it?
Again, I am in no way triggered or offended by a prayer at a school game. I want that to be 100% clear. My position is that the game is not the appropriate setting for the prayer in my opinion. And if the rest of the country disagrees, then fine. . . .but, if we are going to allow Christian prayer, we have to allow 'any' prayer. Triggered Christians at the first game where the church of Satan gives the opening prayer is the inevitable result here.
What I don't understand is why the prayer has to be an official part of the event. In a previous post, I listed a bunch of ways in which Christians can and should pray both publicly and privately. Literally, no one is saying that Christians can't pray before a game. But, that isn't what Christians want. They don't want to pray before a game. They want their prayer to be publicly recognized as part of the program. A prayer to themselves, with their friends or family, or with the entire stadium isn't sufficient. It has to be led by a school employee being paid by tax dollars. It has to be officially recognized as the accepted value set. That is 100% what this is about. Power and Pride. Nothing else.
That seems to be quite a leap and a whole lot of projection.
I think we just want to pray because we want the safety of the players and also acknowledge there are more important things than winning or losing an athletic event.
And we believe God hears our prayers.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
So why does that need to be done over the loudspeakers in a way that all attendees are forced to listen / participate?
ramblin_ag02 said:Just to clarify, the African Churches have been awesome on the international scene. In the Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, and the Lutheran Church, the African churches have been reasonable and steady hands while churches in the West are overreacting to the culture wars in one way or another. They also are some of the most active players in the ecumenical scene promoting unity across denominations. So yes, they are a shining beacon and Christianity is blessed to have themSapper Redux said:Didn't Uganda just make being gay a capital offense? Is that what you mean by a "shining beacon"?Quote:
The African Christian churches are shining beacons to the rest of the world right now if you're a conservative Christian.
Didn't they push the law in Uganda that makes being gay a capital offense?
ramblin_ag02 said:And then Sapper drops in with the philosophical equivalent of "how long have you been beating your wife?"Sapper Redux said:Didn't Uganda just make being gay a capital offense? Is that what you mean by a "shining beacon"?Quote:
The African Christian churches are shining beacons to the rest of the world right now if you're a conservative Christian.
Just for fun, how do you feel about these laws? What do you think should be done about it?
African Christian leaders have been behind or supportive of legislation like this.
Are you really asking how I feel about laws that threaten to execute people for who they are, who are not harming others? Not a fan. What should be done? Until the law is repealed, any financial support to Uganda should be placed under a microscope and cut where it makes sense.
dermdoc said:Link?Sapper Redux said:Quote:
America's historical legal framework is seen as cumbersome to the liberal minded. Laws are now selectively applied to promote a worldview very different than the ones that created the laws.
This is an amazing statement given how conservative judges and state legislatures have been running roughshod over state decisis and existing laws and regulations.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Zobel said:
is your assertion here that state legislatures cannot make laws that supersede existing laws?
Where did you get that? But don't claim changing existing laws and social arrangements is a liberal phenomenon while conservatives are blasting though new culture war legislation and court rulings.
don't think anyone claimed that
but I got it from this
but I got it from this
Quote:
conservative...state legislatures have been running roughshod over...existing laws.
kurt vonnegut said:ramblin_ag02 said:
Just to be clear, the whole impetus of this discussion was public prayer at a football game. A football game that is an entirely optional event for everyone involved. A prayer that asks for everyone to enjoy the game, asks that no one gets hurt, asks that everyone gets home safely, and that there are no hard feelings over the outcome. All this followed by a brief mention of the name Jesus Christ. So I guess I just have no idea why this is offensive, and why that act makes someone feel persecuted, lesser, inferior, or upset in any way whatsoever.
If you're offended by street preachers telling you that you're going to hell, then I get it. If you're offended by pro-life activists with big posters with gruesome images, then I get it. If you're upset about the prevailing right wing rhetoric against the LGBTQ community largely driven by Christians, then I get it. Not saying I 100% agree, but I understand why someone would be upset about these things. I just can't wrap my head around someone getting triggered over a goodwill prayer at an optional community function
I think being optional is irrelevant. What I think is relevant is public versus private. Getting a driver's license is optional, that isn't justification for the DMV to play Church of Satan adds in the waiting room tv. Church of Satan adds are inappropriate in that setting. Not playing Church of Satan adds at the DMV isn't a removal of their free speech, is it?
Again, I am in no way triggered or offended by a prayer at a school game. I want that to be 100% clear. My position is that the game is not the appropriate setting for the prayer in my opinion. And if the rest of the country disagrees, then fine. . . .but, if we are going to allow Christian prayer, we have to allow 'any' prayer. Triggered Christians at the first game where the church of Satan gives the opening prayer is the inevitable result here.
What I don't understand is why the prayer has to be an official part of the event. In a previous post, I listed a bunch of ways in which Christians can and should pray both publicly and privately. Literally, no one is saying that Christians can't pray before a game. But, that isn't what Christians want. They don't want to pray before a game. They want their prayer to be publicly recognized as part of the program. A prayer to themselves, with their friends or family, or with the entire stadium isn't sufficient. It has to be led by a school employee being paid by tax dollars. It has to be officially recognized as the accepted value set. That is 100% what this is about. Power and Pride. Nothing else.
One of the things we see consistently in your argumentation (whether intentional or otherwise) is an obliteration of boundaries. I won't ascribe motive to it and perhaps you're not aware of it but you do it more often than you think.
I asked what a satanist would invoke if they don't believe in satan because the word 'invoke' has a meaning, a definition, a boundary to its use and it's pertinent to your complaint. There's nothing for them to invoke so why would they get to speak at that time? Likewise with a prayer, they don't believe in anything that they could pray to so why would we give them a seat at the table?
Your argument is not about prayer or invocation, per se, but a desire to change time created for a purpose into something super generic where anyone can say anything in the name of free speech. That's a much more straightforward understanding of what you want: a time for public comment before events.
Roe v Wade was never constitutional in my opinion. And SCOTUS agrees.Sapper Redux said:dermdoc said:Link?Sapper Redux said:Quote:
America's historical legal framework is seen as cumbersome to the liberal minded. Laws are now selectively applied to promote a worldview very different than the ones that created the laws.
This is an amazing statement given how conservative judges and state legislatures have been running roughshod over state decisis and existing laws and regulations.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
It was terrible case law.
And if abortion is all you got, then that is one item.
If voters do not like what the state legislatures do, then vote them out and a new state legislature can pass new laws. That is how this works unless you want totalitarianism.
And "roughshod" is a tad hyperbolic for one issue.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I hear things over loudspeakers at public sporting events I do not agree with all the time and it does not "offend" me.Sapper Redux said:
So why does that need to be done over the loudspeakers in a way that all attendees are forced to listen / participate?
Does it really bother you that much to hear a usually generic prayer before a fb game?
Seems like manufactured outrage.
And if the voters do not want prayers, they can elect people who agree with them.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
So you feel that we know better than them, their beliefs are wrong, and it is our duty to punish them until they agree with your beliefs?Sapper Redux said:ramblin_ag02 said:And then Sapper drops in with the philosophical equivalent of "how long have you been beating your wife?"Sapper Redux said:Didn't Uganda just make being gay a capital offense? Is that what you mean by a "shining beacon"?Quote:
The African Christian churches are shining beacons to the rest of the world right now if you're a conservative Christian.
Just for fun, how do you feel about these laws? What do you think should be done about it?
African Christian leaders have been behind or supportive of legislation like this.
Are you really asking how I feel about laws that threaten to execute people for who they are, who are not harming others? Not a fan. What should be done? Until the law is repealed, any financial support to Uganda should be placed under a microscope and cut where it makes sense.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
ramblin_ag02 said:So you feel that we know better than them, their beliefs are wrong, and it is our duty to punish them until they agree with your beliefs?Sapper Redux said:ramblin_ag02 said:And then Sapper drops in with the philosophical equivalent of "how long have you been beating your wife?"Sapper Redux said:Didn't Uganda just make being gay a capital offense? Is that what you mean by a "shining beacon"?Quote:
The African Christian churches are shining beacons to the rest of the world right now if you're a conservative Christian.
Just for fun, how do you feel about these laws? What do you think should be done about it?
African Christian leaders have been behind or supportive of legislation like this.
Are you really asking how I feel about laws that threaten to execute people for who they are, who are not harming others? Not a fan. What should be done? Until the law is repealed, any financial support to Uganda should be placed under a microscope and cut where it makes sense.
Neo-colonialism has many faces.
Hey Sapper, glad you're back, you care to address the rest of my post or just want to nitpick over something else in there? I haven't corrected a their/there/they're grammatical error yet if you'd like to point that out.
Also, I've linked a collection of free philosophy courses for you.
https://www.openculture.com/philosophy_free_courses
I believe the ethics one should cover normative versus descriptive ethics. The introduction courses should cover Hume's is/aught principle.
Also, I've linked a collection of free philosophy courses for you.
https://www.openculture.com/philosophy_free_courses
I believe the ethics one should cover normative versus descriptive ethics. The introduction courses should cover Hume's is/aught principle.
I know I'm minimizing your complaint, but I really can't help it. All I hear is "people are speaking out hoping for health, safety, happiness, and brotherly love at a public event using public money and I'm upset about that"
I said it in another thread. You could take the most wretched, vile, putrid belief system imaginable. But if someone from that belief system prays for peace, happiness, and safety, then I wouldn't be offended in the least. Your Satanist example is one case. If a Satanist wishes all those things for me, then I'll say "thank you" and not think twice about it
I said it in another thread. You could take the most wretched, vile, putrid belief system imaginable. But if someone from that belief system prays for peace, happiness, and safety, then I wouldn't be offended in the least. Your Satanist example is one case. If a Satanist wishes all those things for me, then I'll say "thank you" and not think twice about it
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
K - change everywhere I said church of Satan to Islam and reread the post. I think that you think technicality stops my argument, but it really doesn't. How will Christina react when we start having Muslim prayers on the loudspeakers?
kurt vonnegut said:
K - change everywhere I said church of Satan to Islam and reread the post. I think that you think technicality stops my argument, but it really doesn't. How will Christina react when we start having Muslim prayers on the loudspeakers?
Honestly don't care. Throw a Jewish prayer in there as well.
ramblin_ag02 said:
I know I'm minimizing your complaint, but I really can't help it. All I hear is "people are speaking out hoping for health, safety, happiness, and brotherly love at a public event using public money and I'm upset about that"
I said it in another thread. You could take the most wretched, vile, putrid belief system imaginable. But if someone from that belief system prays for peace, happiness, and safety, then I wouldn't be offended in the least. Your Satanist example is one case. If a Satanist wishes all those things for me, then I'll say "thank you" and not think twice about it
And all I see on your end is "Some people don't want public funds used for prayers. And if that happens, Christianity is basically outlawed and Im not allowed to ever pray again."
You can't understand why I care. And I can't understand why you care so much.
Imagine a school football game announcer made an announcement about a new museum promoting human evolution and natural abiogenesis. If you felt that was unnecessary and inappropriate I would have zero problem agreeing with a rule to stop that announcement. Because removal of that announcement has absolutely zero influence over my ability to believe what I want about those issues and to enjoy that museum. The ONLY reason for me to fight against the removal of that announcement would be to ensure my values and preferences are given special privilege.
Featured Stories
See All
38:51
1d ago
8.0k
22:46
51m ago
1.7k
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
by David Nuño
5 Thoughts: Texas 70, No. 13 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
77:19
1d ago
1.7k
Video Replay: Student Bonfire 2025
by TexAgs
rwhitlock3
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44