If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   Professor forces a student to violate his religious beliefs. Student complains the college. College does A) apologize, B) Bring the Professor before a committee, or C) Suspend the student and go into denial mode   (townhall.com) divider line 478
    More: Asinine, jesus, Florida Atlantic University, Paul Kengor, colleges, students, Delaware Democratic Party, professors, Ryan Rotela  
•       •       •

18551 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Mar 2013 at 1:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



478 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-24 07:34:12 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Would you guys have been this angry and hateful and whiny if he had used Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or the Dali Llama


Show me angry and hateful in any of my posts.

I don't really care about this exercise, and would not have been offended by it, but I can understand why someone else might. Is my ability to sympathize with someone else another one of those evils that only religion could have burdened humanity with?
 
2013-03-24 07:35:31 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: s2s2s2: Why wasn't the exercise to write the name of the thing most important to each individual student and have them step on it?

Because those would unlikely be symbols prevalent in our society. And the professor DIDN'T FARKING SAY "YOU MUST STEP ON IT OR I'LL FAIL YOU!". This right here seems to be the major point of contention that you have a problem understanding.


I've never suggested that it was a requirement. I don't think you are doing a good job on the analytics.
 
2013-03-24 07:38:15 PM
Interesting that they weren't instructed to write "Jesus Christ" just "Jesus." Also it sounds like the point of it was that they were always able to refuse - that's what it sounds like to me anyway. Of course, none of us were there.
 
2013-03-24 07:39:11 PM

Biological Ali: You do realize that there's a massive amount of violence all around the world that occurs solely because it's commanded by various religions, right? I mean, if you were talking strictly about the US, it might be understandable (though still not entirely correct, since religiously motivated violence still does occur even there), but to say that about the world is just hilariously wrong.


No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

Religion is the tool. Man is the one using it to his own ends.
 
2013-03-24 08:01:15 PM
FloydA:
The point of the exercise was to get the students to think

Hence the religious objection. /snark
 
2013-03-24 08:01:34 PM
Nobody was forced to step on the paper.
Nobody was suspended or punished.
The class exercise proved the point it was supposed to make.

Clearly this is a huge outrage and heads should roll.
 
2013-03-24 08:32:04 PM

FloydA: thefatbasturd:

The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.


Are you assuming that all of the atheists in the class would step on the paper?  Because that's not an assumption I'm willing to make.  I would hesitate (and I'm about as athy as they get), not because I believe in Jesus, but because I "believe in" politeness, and I would not want to offend my classmates.  Therefore, the symbol has meaning to me even though I am not a member of that, or any other, religion.

I suspect that you may not have understood what the exercise was intended to teach.


Are you assuming my post had ANYTHING to do with atheists? Point to where it even slightly refers to atheists. The whole point of it was about OTHER faiths most important figures. Mohammed, Buddah, Moses, Zarathustra. Etc. I suppose if you wanna finally recognize Atheism as a form of "faith" and write the name Dawkins, that's cool too, but not at all what I was talking about. I understand exactly what the lesson was intending to teach, do you?
 
2013-03-24 08:42:18 PM

No Such Agency: FloydA:
The point of the exercise was to get the students to think

Hence the religious objection. /snark


Snark, sure. It is true though.
 
2013-03-24 08:50:00 PM

s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."


There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.
 
2013-03-24 09:02:14 PM

Dracolich: Russ1642: hawcian: Russ1642: The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

From the link Happy Hour posted, it seems like the student told the professor he was going to the supervisor and the media and telling them that his (the students) religious freedom was being violated. This is pretty much a veiled threat, anyway (you don't go to the media over something like this unless you're trying to blow it out of proportion). And I'm guessing the kid wasn't exactly being polite at that point, either. The professor feels threatened, tells the kid to leave, kid complains, FAU finds that he threatened a professor and tells him to leave the class and the professor alone until further investigation. Thus, "suspension" from that class.

Now that I can see. He was kicked out of the class for being a complete asshole. Religious people are so used to people being so careful about never offending them that even a discussion on why something is offensive can set them off. His religious faith must be really fragile.

In coming to terms with my own lack of faith, I left a lot of other people's faith shaken.  That included 3 Lutheran pastors (one from the seminary), 2 Methodist ministers, 1 Catholic priest, several youth leaders, and countless others.  It wasn't like I was keeping score at the time, but in reflection it was a lot.  I wanted to believe.  I specifically looked to those who were the smartest within my church to find out why they believed.  In ending one conversation, they'd often point me to a significant person who inspired them to believe.  This eventually lead me to the seminary.  What I found there was that those most in touch with studying and teaching the faith had massive doubts with well-constructed rationalizations for not thinking about those doubts.  It's wishful thinking in a world filled with contrary evidence.  It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.


And who the HELL are you to decide what is the "right thing" for them? I will never understand that about so many Fark Atheists (capital A intended because for these idiots, unlike most atheists, it IS a religion) What is it that pisses you off or scares you SO much about someone else believing something different than you? Atheists scream so loud about Christians pushing their beliefs on others, but it is perfectly FINE for them to push their non-belief on people? WTF???? As one idiot in this thread said "It's okay to question or ridicule them to make them examine their faith" Question yes. Ridicule no. All you do in that is piss anyone off who isn't already of your own mind. I'm short if you want respect for your choice to not believe you DAMN sure better be prepared to respect someone else's right to believe.
 
2013-03-24 09:03:35 PM
I think that some posters in here could benefit from trying this exercise themselves.  If you think the exercise was pointless and meant to target certain individuals, go on, try it.  How did you feel when you stepped on it?

I can understand why the professor chose Jesus as opposed to God or Mohammad, or Mom, given the Christian overshadows in American culture.  Who is it, primarily that doesn't want gays to marry?  Who is it, primarily, that wants to restrict certain healthcare?  Must someone be Christian to get elected to higher office in this country?  Sometimes this introspection is necessary, especially for the students exactly like this student who would whine and complain to the media about the assignment.  Why is it so damned important that someone not ask you to do this?  Why is it so damned offensive to you?  Why do you see no value in it and see it as completely pointless?   If you can get a few words out about it, it wasn't completely pointless, was it?  What are you going to do with this knowledge?

That was the whole idea.  It's sad that the point / relevancy of the exercise is even being debated on Fark.
 
2013-03-24 09:13:41 PM

Dracolich: It usually came down to "but people need something to believe in to get by," but in reality they were all too deep into the organization to break free and do the right thing.


Eh...Religion (as a supertype) wasn't *just* invented by con men and wasn't *just* forced into people by youth indoctrination or by-the-sword conversions.  People invented it, and accepted it, because they did need it.

Of course those of us that don't...well we're just trying to make the world a better place without crushed and oppressed and beaten with other people's psychological crutches.
 
2013-03-24 09:20:45 PM

gadian: It's sad that the point / relevancy of the exercise is even being debated on Fark.


that said...
Piss on Jesus, Mo-homo, Abraham, and Buddha,

Grow your own and lve in peace.

Farking assholes toting guns spittle breathing fire and fungus among us should all DIAF.
Let people sleep at night with out wondering if some enlightened asshole will murder them in their sleep.

/Buddhist.
 
2013-03-24 09:31:39 PM

thefatbasturd: Are you assuming my post had ANYTHING to do with atheists? Point to where it even slightly refers to atheists. The whole point of it was about OTHER faiths most important figures. Mohammed, Buddah, Moses, Zarathustra. Etc. I suppose if you wanna finally recognize Atheism as a form of "faith" and write the name Dawkins, that's cool too, but not at all what I was talking about. I understand exactly what the lesson was intending to teach, do you?


No, I believe you misunderstood FloydA's response.

The point of the exercise was to show how  culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.

Now, obviously, there will always be students who will step on the paper regardless, but you just need to look at this thread (and FloydA's response to you) to find non-Christians who wouldn't step on the paper for non-religious (cultural and societal) reasons, which was one of the results the lesson intended.

Personalizing it would have taken any kind of comparative/societal aspect away from it. It would have been all about individual symbolism, which wasn't the point.
 
2013-03-24 09:41:48 PM
Town Hall? Pass.
 
2013-03-24 09:47:04 PM

Girion47: It's a mormon?  who cares?

They're nothing more than scientologists that say Jesus than Xenu.   Their a cult and not deserving of respect.


I hear they have a mandatory 10% tithe and because of that their own private social security system.

There's a lot of money they can wield. Imagine if they set their sites on political offices.
 
2013-03-24 09:52:57 PM

FloydA: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbols

That oddly only focused on one symbol.


That was a pedagogical necessity.  The lesson (whatever its merits or lack thereof) would not have worked if each student had to respond to a different symbol.


"Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Why wouldn't that work if each student used a different symbol?
 
2013-03-24 09:54:56 PM

ginandbacon: FloydA: That was a pedagogical necessity.

When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


How was this student singled out?  Everyone was told to stomp on the same word.
 
2013-03-24 10:07:46 PM

ginandbacon: My understanding of this lesson was that it (the way this particular teacher decided to implement it) focused on the the word Jesus. Which would have singled out any devout Christian or anyone with any respect for anyone who followed that faith. It was a sloppy and useless way to address religious symbolism or religion.


The exercise quoted in TFA was not about religion.

""Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

It was desired that most students would not stomp on the word, despite being ordered to do so by an authority figure.  That resistance is what highlights the importance of symbols. The students are asked to "think about it for a  moment" in order to heighten the importance of the symbol.  The word, "Jesus," was chosen because the authors assumed the classroom would contain a high percentage of students to whom that symbol is quite important.

Everything about the exercise is designed to demonstrate the power of symbols, not to disparage religion in general or any particular religion.
 
2013-03-24 10:10:06 PM

BarkingUnicorn: FloydA: ginandbacon: Keizer_Ghidorah: It was a discussion about symbols

That oddly only focused on one symbol.


That was a pedagogical necessity.  The lesson (whatever its merits or lack thereof) would not have worked if each student had to respond to a different symbol.

"Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Why wouldn't that work if each student used a different symbol?


Because it would introduce an unknown and uncontrolled set of variables in a thought-experiment that's already dealing with variable factors.  If anything, using Jesus's name is an acknowledgement of the power and respect that particular symbol carries, not an attack on anyone's religion.

I've met plenty of thoughtful, introspective religious folks of various faiths, Christian and otherwise.  I can't imagine any of them having problems with the premise of this exercise, since the focus was on why the students would choose not to step on the paper and the significance of the symbol within our culture.  However, dummies gonna dumb, I guess, as this thread amply shows.
 
2013-03-24 10:16:24 PM
Has the term "holy snowflake" been coined yet?
 
2013-03-24 10:20:34 PM

ginandbacon: When is singling out any student a pedagogical necessity? It's cruel and an abuse of power.


Wow, are you a troll or just a farking moron?
 
2013-03-24 10:22:33 PM

J. Frank Parnell: TheBigJerk: Professor's response; "go home kid, try to understand what you just proved."

But it's a shiatty experiment.

As i already tried to illustrate amid the rolling sea of derp here, people would not take part in such a thing if it involved anything they care about. Another example is If you put a sports team name on a piece of paper and told a fan of that team to stomp on it. They would also refuse to do so. It has nothing to do with religion.


Why? The word "Jesus" isn't Jesus, and the name of a sports team isn't the team. If you're teaching symbology, this is an excellent demonstration of the power of symbols.
 
2013-03-24 10:31:19 PM
I'm just pissed that I gave a hit to a site that immediately treated me to a pop-up ad for a book comparing Obama's re-election to the apocalypse. That's not a news site, it's a crazypants blog.
 
2013-03-24 10:33:48 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Sup, letrole?


It's a surname!
 
2013-03-24 10:38:46 PM

FloydA: There is a substantive difference between thinking "he's a good guy" and "bowing and scraping" or "treating him as a godhead."   I think Sir Arthur Guinness, Alan Turing, and Sir Thomas Crapper were great men, because each of them invented something that makes my life better, but I don't worship any of them.



Quite a lot of people do worship Crapper at his Porcelain Throne.
 
2013-03-24 10:43:51 PM

ciberido: FloydA: There is a substantive difference between thinking "he's a good guy" and "bowing and scraping" or "treating him as a godhead."   I think Sir Arthur Guinness, Alan Turing, and Sir Thomas Crapper were great men, because each of them invented something that makes my life better, but I don't worship any of them.


Quite a lot of people do worship Crapper at his Porcelain Throne.


Had to look that up. Apparently he didn't invent the toilet but, almost as good, he invented the ballcock.
 
2013-03-24 10:52:49 PM

Ahvren: The point of the exercise was to show how  culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.


Exactly.  I could write the most important people/things in my life on a piece of paper - , my mom's (who passed away) name, my boyfried's name, my cats' names, my band's name.  My own name, even.  Why would anyone who isn't me (or related to my boyfriend or me) have any issue stomping on a piece of paper that said "Jason"?  As personally important to me all of the above are, they are not pervasive influences or icons in our culture. That is why they chose "Jesus."  Even atheists recognize who Jesus is.  Christians worship him.  Jews acknowledge and wait for his return. Muslims consider him a Prophet.  Agnostics certainly feel something.  And even many atheists will say "there is nothing wrong with the general message of Jesus."

I don't understand how people can't see the point of this illustration and how interesting and valuable the ensuing discussion should be, beyond someone throwing a hissy fit of epic proportions that this exercise was even proposed.  (Am I still correct that nobody was forced to step on the paper?  I'd love to know how religious beliefs were violated here....)
 
2013-03-24 11:00:21 PM

serpent_sky: Jews acknowledge and wait for his return.


>_>
 
2013-03-24 11:01:22 PM
Anyone upset about this exercise COMPLETELY missed the entire point of the thing.
 
2013-03-24 11:02:29 PM
The object of the exercise was not to desecrate a symbol. It was to make the students investigate their relationship with symbols.

He used Jesus because Christianity is the dominant cultural influence in America. Using a minority symbol would not have the same impact, and would actually be more likely to be interpreted as sincere desecration.

... But of course many political Christians actually  do imagine themselves as a persecuted minority, so the professor should have seen this coming.
America is not some homogeneous culture that you can make such broad statements about.  This is a massive country with 300+ million people across 3.8 million sq miles.  Do you really think the dominant culture the in Bible Belt is the same as Hollywood or New York?   Christianity most certainly is NOT the dominant cultural influence in a University.  Therefore, by your own argument stomping on Jesus would be MORE likely to be interpreted as sinceredesecration than, say, stomping on the name MLK Jr. or perhaps Darwin.
 
2013-03-24 11:07:49 PM

eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?  This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.


It doesn't pay to be the only sane guy in the asylum.
 
2013-03-24 11:15:39 PM

Biological Ali: s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.


True. We all know only the religious are homophobes!
 
2013-03-24 11:41:11 PM
Dummy missed the point that the relevance of symbols is deminstrated by students NOT stomping in the word representing the name of Joshua Ben Joseph aka jesus, the son of god, whatever

So he gets an F for "fark you".

I hope the final exam is an essay question on why people hesitated to step on paper with a word written on it(not the actual person or the bible). Maybe this douche can redeem himself a bit.
 
2013-03-24 11:42:19 PM

Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss

Because "hate crime" does not mean that hatred or expressions that can interpreted at hateful are criminal, but rather refers to bias-motivated violence, which this is not.

Understand now?


No.

Please show where VIOLENCE is a necessary factor in any "hate crime" under law.

Thanks for your help.

No problem. Here is a link to "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes," published by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which is part of the United States Department of Justice.

Given your interest in the subject, you'll probably want to read the whole thing, but for the immediate question I'll direct your attention to the section on page 2, "Defining Hate Crimes."

I'm glad we had this exchange, and I hope in the future you can help correct other people's misconception about the subject.


Thanks for the link, that's a good read.  One question though, the section you pointed us to says the following:

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including [but presumably not limited to] where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property."

and

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?
 
2013-03-24 11:44:53 PM

brian_ellenberger: Christianity most certainly is NOT the dominant cultural influence in a University


Spoken like a typical delusional "persecuted" christian.
 
2013-03-24 11:50:09 PM
LOL, liberal arts classes.

/smug computer scientist
 
2013-03-24 11:51:02 PM

albatros183: My question for this whole thread is wtf is anybody responding to skinnyhead?


www.wilsonstation.com


FloydA: Remember that TownHall is not a reliable source of accurate information; it is yellow journalism at its worst.


Or more precisely, TownHall at its finest is an example of yellow journalism at its worst. Usually, TownHall doesn't crawl that far out of the slime.
 
2013-03-24 11:54:21 PM
And yet we complain about the lack of critical thought in education.
 
2013-03-25 12:01:09 AM
biscuette.com

static.gotpetsonline.com

Stop.

Frisk.
 
2013-03-25 12:11:03 AM

s2s2s2: Biological Ali: s2s2s2: No. It is "You have stuff I want, or I think belongs to me, and also you are wrong about stuff, so give me your stuff which is really my stuff, oh, and also 'God'."

There's plenty of religious violence that doesn't have anything to do with "stuff". When the state of Iran hangs two gay teenagers, for instance, it isn't because because the kids had "stuff" that the government wanted.

True. We all know only the religious are homophobes!


You know, you don't have to keep posting if you've no longer got a point.
 
2013-03-25 12:21:48 AM

Raptop: I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?


Sure. Race-based white-collar bank fraud would probably qualify -- preferentially routing black folks' life savings to a numbered account in the Caymans, say.

Still needs a crime, or criminal-grade mens rea, though. And most racists aren't that indirect, though I suppose there's extreme outliers.
 
2013-03-25 12:31:07 AM

Raptop: Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: Hickory-smoked: Amos Quito: How was this not a HATE CRIME?

/Discuss

Because "hate crime" does not mean that hatred or expressions that can interpreted at hateful are criminal, but rather refers to bias-motivated violence, which this is not.

Understand now?


No.

Please show where VIOLENCE is a necessary factor in any "hate crime" under law.

Thanks for your help.

No problem. Here is a link to "A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes," published by the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which is part of the United States Department of Justice.

Given your interest in the subject, you'll probably want to read the whole thing, but for the immediate question I'll direct your attention to the section on page 2, "Defining Hate Crimes."

I'm glad we had this exchange, and I hope in the future you can help correct other people's misconception about the subject.

Thanks for the link, that's a good read.  One question though, the section you pointed us to says the following:

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including [but presumably not limited to] where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property."

and

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?



Good catch.

Lol at the lad trying to teach ME about "Hate Crimes".

I learned from the masters -  the originating authors of the very CONCEPT of "Hate Crimes" in the United States:


1.bp.blogspot.com

No one hates like the ADL hates.
 
2013-03-25 01:08:03 AM

Man On Pink Corner: eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?  This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

It doesn't pay to be the only sane guy in the asylum.


I've always found the old adage "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king" to be overly optimistic.
 
2013-03-25 01:18:23 AM
I'm so liberal I label myself a "European socialist", and my wife is a tenured professor. Unsurprisingly, I'm also an atheist. For the record, Deandre Poole's actions fill me with disgust.

The story called him "associate professor", which would mean he has tenure. So don't be upset when he doesn't get fired. If we look him up 2 years from now, he'll probably be working at a community college anyway. Universities have 400 years experience in punishing professors who screw up this badly.
 
2013-03-25 01:20:49 AM
Help, help! I'm being...


i651.photobucket.com

Harrumph!
 
2013-03-25 02:01:27 AM
I'd like to know what the other students in the class say happened.  All this got us was "student says, teacher says".
 
2013-03-25 02:22:37 AM
Raptop:
Thanks for the link, that's a good read.  One question though, the section you pointed us to says the following:

The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990 (see Chapter 1) defines hate
crimes as "crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, including [but presumably not limited to] where appropriate the
crimes of murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated
assault, simple assault, intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage or
vandalism of property."

and

For the purposes of this report, hate crimes-or bias-motivated crimes-
are defined as offenses motivated by hatred against a victim based on his
or her race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin.

I think there's room in there for non-violent hate crimes to exist, WDYT?


That depends if "Violence against Property," like vandalism or arson, are still violence.

I would suggest that they are. The more I think of it, I can't even say what a "non-violent hate crime" would look like. Bank embezzlement against black people? Anti-Jewish drug possession?

The important thing here is, Amos Quito was completely wrong about everything, and hopefully he knows that now if he didn't before.
 
2013-03-25 02:27:23 AM

Amos Quito: Good catch.

Lol at the lad trying to teach ME about "Hate Crimes".


Oh, sorry I missed reply earlier.

Your Boobies asked the question if discussing the action of stepping on a paper with "JESUS" written on it constitutes a hate crime. If you're still confused on that point, then very clearly someone needs to teach you about the legislation, "lol"ing or not.
 
2013-03-25 02:32:05 AM

Bit'O'Gristle: TerminalEchoes: ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

/You do realize, you just said you're an atheist, and that jesus was a great man in the same sentence dont you?
//bangs head on desk.


...what?
 
Displayed 50 of 478 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report