Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The Business Journals)   Mass Christian college to Obama Administration: We want an exemption from your proposed law so we can discriminate against hiring gays and lesbians. New England Association of School and College: So, about that accreditation of yours   (bizjournals.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8974 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jul 2014 at 3:25 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-15 07:50:19 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.

Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well

I'm sorry where did I assign any credibility or grounding in reality to their beliefs?  Oh I didn't, you're just having an emotional reaction to something you disagree with and attacked the messenger.


i41.photobucket.com

I suppose when you utterly fail in defense of a deeply flawed viewpoint, it's convenient to bail and claim you're just the messenger.
 
2014-07-15 07:51:34 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Dusk-You-n-Me: Callous: No it's a demonstration of their belief that behaviors don't define the person

Right, a cop out. "Gay people are cool with us as long as they don't, you know, do anything gay."

Gee golly, what a deal for gays! How generous of the religious to allow gays to exist in our modern society as long as they conform to the rules that please the religious. See gays, what's the problem? Be gay, just don't, be gay. See, we're not bigots! We good? We good.

The vacuous arguments Christian apologists come up with to justify their homophobic bigotry would be kind of amusing if they weren't so sad.

Where have I apologized for anything or assigned right or wrong to their beliefs?  I have merely tried to relay them as accurately as I understand them.

Although I do find it amusing that you cannot engage in the conversation with out screaming "H8ter!!!!".  And homophobic implies fear, I have never seen that.  It's another accusation that is intended to stifle conversation and force conformity of opinion.  Either that or it's another demonstration of the point I made above about you not understanding them while screaming and crying that they don't understand you.

Guess what, champ? Not all ideas/opinions have equal grounding in reality, which you've demonstrated amply. And mockery != screaming and crying.

And "apologetics" doesn't mean apologizing. Not entirely surprising that you get that wrong as well

I'm sorry where did I assign any credibility or grounding in reality to their beliefs?  Oh I didn't, you're just having an emotional reaction to something you disagree with and attacked the messenger.

[i41.photobucket.com image 450x299]

I suppose when you utterly fail in defense of a deeply flawed viewpoint, it's convenient to bail and claim you're just the messenger.


Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.
 
2014-07-15 07:51:42 PM  
I didn't know the point of accrediting a school was to push a political/moral point. I thought it was to ensure a certain academic threshold was met. I could be wrong, but it feels right, and that's all that matters.
 
2014-07-15 07:55:49 PM  

Magorn: ciberido: Magorn: what gets sticky is what constitutes an "exercise" of a religion?

[snip text]

Magorn:  Animal sacrifice in contravention of local animal cruelty laws?

ciberido: Nope.  Use a stuffed animal or something.  Maybe you can "transubstantiate" it into a real, alive animal just before you kill it.

Well of that list Wisconsin v Yoder.....

The peyote case is Smith dicussed above, and the animal sacrifice  issue came up in theChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah \which came after smith but went 9-0 for the Santeria chicken killers


I can't remember the case name, but I seem to remember an animal sacrifice free exercise case from back in law school (which was much longer ago than I want to admit) that upheld a ban on burnt offerings of animal sacrifice pursuant to zoning ordinances where the plaintiff was a guy who had decided to return to Old Testament biblical holocaust practices.  Did Church  of Lukumi Babalu Aye v City of Hialeah overrule that earlier case?
 
2014-07-15 08:04:25 PM  
Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.


Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.
 
2014-07-15 08:33:21 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.


Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.
 
2014-07-15 08:37:15 PM  
Just pointing this out: Gordon College has operated in a state with marriage equality for a decade and their god hasn't done anything about it.

Maybe their god doesn't care?
 
2014-07-15 08:47:23 PM  

Callous: Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.

Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.


AKA the "some people say..." technique
 
2014-07-15 08:57:53 PM  

Bawdy George: Callous: Bawdy George: Callous:  Please demonstrate where I tried to defend it.

Callous:  No, it's the unrepentant part of it.  If you are living as an open homosexual or continue to engage in the behavior you're an unrepentant sinner.  An alcoholic who continues to drink is an unrepentant sinner as well.  While a recovering alcoholic who no longer drinks is a repentant sinner.  Therefore a homosexual who renounces homosexuality and no longer engages in the behavior would be a repentant sinner.

You can replace homosexuality or alcoholism with just about any sin.  The line is drawn at whether or not you are actively engaging in that sin without any intention of stopping or remorse.

Nope, totally not defending Christian bigotry. At least you didn't try to deny your utter failure.

Defining how their beliefs work is not defending it.  I was merely trying to give people the facts about how Christian beliefs are formed, right wrong or indifferent.  You apparently can't handle that and had an emotional meltdown and started calling me names.

AKA the "some people say..." technique


Now you're just flailing.
 
2014-07-15 09:13:42 PM  
I'm not really sure why everyone is surprised that people who believe in God would choose to put God's commands ahead of modern 21st century morals.  People who twist their religion around to make it fit with modern sensibilities are not in line with the actual requirements of those religions (the rules aren't "suggestions").  According to those rules, they aren't really believers at all and will be heading to Hell for their arrogance. 

God is the one these Christian college people are worried about pleasing.  Everything besides God is petty and vain by comparison.  By necessity.  Considering America is a "Christian Country" it shows a considerable lack of tolerance for people who try to obey the scriptures.  I guess that makes sense when you think about it, though.  To most Americans their religion is like an accessory they can put on or take off when it's convenient.  Few people have bothered to read or try to understand the Bible and yet have the audacity to assume they are going to Heaven when their entire life is spent making mistakes. 

The blind are giving directions to the sighted with all this Political Correctness, yet they are not seen as the ones making mistakes.  Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.
 
2014-07-15 09:26:21 PM  
Liberals are racists, news at 11:00
 
2014-07-15 09:45:26 PM  

Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts


What DO you believe?
 
2014-07-15 09:54:04 PM  

Dr Dreidel: APO_Buddha: FTFY
Liberty is actually a regionally accredited (SCACS) university. Bob Jones are the people that give you a piece of paper that has the same value as a used Wendy's napkin.

Not for nothing, but SCACS is the "RANDPAUL License" of accreditation - The South Carolina Association of Christian Schools.

So while you're technically correct, it's not like a credential issued by Liberty is much better. if you're part of the crowd, the name of the institution matters more than any accreditation. If you're not hip to the jive, Liberty might as well have Klingon accreditation.

// last month, I learned Liberty U is not too far from Floyd, VA (hippieville)


SCACS isn't listed in the CHEA db - therefore it's an unaccredited accrediting agency. Sux to be them.
http://www.chea.org/Directories/index.asp
 
2014-07-15 10:06:55 PM  

I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts

What DO you believe?


I believe that it is an integral part of their personality and not simply a chosen behavior.

I never said I agreed with Christians who think it's a choice. But I have debated it enough with many of them that I do understand their views/beliefs on it.

Oh and I am a Christian, I just don't follow the herd. And I'm not the only one. But there's not very many of us from what I have observed.

I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".

The one question the people who hold it as some kind of mortal sun can't answer is, if it's such a huge deal why didn't Christ address it directly?
 
2014-07-15 10:10:07 PM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Callous: I was merely trying to give people the facts

What DO you believe?

I believe that it is an integral part of their personality and not simply a chosen behavior.

I never said I agreed with Christians who think it's a choice. But I have debated it enough with many of them that I do understand their views/beliefs on it.

Oh and I am a Christian, I just don't follow the herd. And I'm not the only one. But there's not very many of us from what I have observed.

I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".

The one question the people who hold it as some kind of mortal sun can't answer is, if it's such a huge deal why didn't Christ address it directly?


Thank you.
 
2014-07-15 10:16:52 PM  

Boojum2k: serial_crusher: Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?

An accredited degree is a way of identifying someone as being able to do certain jobs, so in those cases it certainly still is a valid check. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination against LGBT people though.


Well, the connection really shouldn't need to be spelled out.
You said that "all relevant factors" should be taken into account.  If a school's accreditation can be rejected based on their hiring policies rather than the quality of the education they provide, the accreditatedness of an applicant's degree stops being relevant.  People who are perfectly qualified to do a particular job aren't being properly labeled because of a political debate.  The whole accreditation board becomes moot with this kind of behavior.

In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good.  But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.

/ Maybe the health inspector should shut down their dorm cafeterias over this.  Police and fire department should refuse to operate on their campus as well.  Then they'll learn not to be bigots!
 
2014-07-15 10:24:18 PM  

serial_crusher: In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good. But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.


Fair enough. While many of their students probably support their stance, I'm sure not all of them do and it is remarkably unfair to punish them for the failures of the school.
 
2014-07-15 10:40:12 PM  

Pattuq: I'm not really sure why everyone is surprised that people who believe in God would choose to put God's commands ahead of modern 21st century morals.  People who twist their religion around to make it fit with modern sensibilities are not in line with the actual requirements of those religions (the rules aren't "suggestions").  According to those rules, they aren't really believers at all and will be heading to Hell for their arrogance. 

God is the one these Christian college people are worried about pleasing.  Everything besides God is petty and vain by comparison.  By necessity.  Considering America is a "Christian Country" it shows a considerable lack of tolerance for people who try to obey the scriptures.  I guess that makes sense when you think about it, though.  To most Americans their religion is like an accessory they can put on or take off when it's convenient.  Few people have bothered to read or try to understand the Bible and yet have the audacity to assume they are going to Heaven when their entire life is spent making mistakes. 

The blind are giving directions to the sighted with all this Political Correctness, yet they are not seen as the ones making mistakes.  Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.


I'm not surprised that people who believe in any god(s) chose to follow their god(s)' commandss and follow them instead of what they see as "21st century morals" whether they are Christian or any other theistic tradition.[I have to admit the "21st century morals" reference confused me in light of God's transcendence of time in Christian teaching so Christian morals are of and for all centuries, including this one- but now understand you to mean "morals created by modern man"]  As for the rest of your assertions, your right to believe in your understanding of whatever the rules are is absolutely protected by the First Amendment (which is as close to an absolute right as you will find in the Constitution, since as Thomas Jefferson stated "(your) belief neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket" and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights as other constitutionally protected rights often do at the margins)

Your right to hold a religious belief that the USA is a "Christian Country" does not however make it so as a matter of fact.  The historical record is clear that the delegates of the Constitutional Convention were aware of the existence of Established Churches, (several colonies had them and that the nations of Europe that the delegates or their immediate ancestors came from had Established Churches from a number of religious sects.)  The wars and persecutions that those Established Churches engendered in Europe was a matter of common historical knowledge of the educated men who were delegates.  Precisely because of that awareness of the evils committed in the name of religion when backed by the power of the State and  Enlightenment philosophy that followed them, the delegates made a conscious decision to reject mixing the metaphysical power of religion and conscience, with the physical power of government.  Therefore they chose not to create a Christian Country or a country committed to upholding a religion or sect of any kind, and forbidding any religious test for participation in the governance of the country or for the rights of citizens of the USA.  Tolerating Christian religion is not the same as compelling others to abide by someone else's conception of it, nor is it intolerant to refuse to grant Christian religion (or any other for that matter) any preference or pre-eminence.  The religious matters I leave to you, since by education and experience I can to speak to the law as it concerns the Constitution as one certified as "learned in the law" to use the arcane phrase and I can assure you that your claim that the USA is a Christian Country is in error and that freedom of religion by one person does mean a grant of preference over that of any other person that you claim "tolerance" requires.
 
2014-07-15 10:56:22 PM  

serial_crusher: Boojum2k: serial_crusher: Boojum2k: Cyclometh: serial_crusher: Shouldn't an accreditation board make their decisions based on the actual quality of the education students get, not the assholeness of the assholes running the place?

Nope. They should take all relevant factors into account and discriminatory hiring policies are very much relevant.

This. The only concern anyone should have in hiring is "can this person do the job reliably and well?" What consenting adults do on their own time isn't anyone else's business, even if they talk about it at work.

So, "does this person have an accredited degree" is no longer a valid check to answer that question?

An accredited degree is a way of identifying someone as being able to do certain jobs, so in those cases it certainly still is a valid check. Not sure what this has to do with discrimination against LGBT people though.

Well, the connection really shouldn't need to be spelled out.
You said that "all relevant factors" should be taken into account.  If a school's accreditation can be rejected based on their hiring policies rather than the quality of the education they provide, the accreditatedness of an applicant's degree stops being relevant.  People who are perfectly qualified to do a particular job aren't being properly labeled because of a political debate.  The whole accreditation board becomes moot with this kind of behavior.

In the long run it would put pressure on the school to change their policies, so that's good.  But I would hate to be a Junior there right now.

/ Maybe the health inspector should shut down their dorm cafeterias over this.  Police and fire department should refuse to operate on their campus as well.  Then they'll learn not to be bigots!


A central element of higher education in a pluralistic society like the USA has been (often in fact but always at least in theory) that it should include exposure to a wider world of ideas, people and values than what the student brings to the institution and to promote the student's ability to respect, learn from, and collaborate with, people whose ideas, culture and values may differ from theirs. Faculty must have those skills to be qualified to teach in higher education founded on that central element irrespective of their knowledge and skills concerning their subject matter. That's not a matter of partisan political debate, or religious debate etc., nor do you have to adopt or even approve of everyone of those people, cultures or ideas you are expected to be exposed to, but it is fair and appropriate to demand that your students aren't ignorant of those things if your institution desires accreditation.
 
2014-07-15 11:15:37 PM  

This text is now purple: flondrix: Has there ever been a breakaway sect of Christianity that regards St. Paul as some jerk who came along after Jesus had died, resurrected, and ascended and hijacked the religion?

The gnostics.


They advocated total sexual abstinence (according to Wiki) and so would have been right in line with St. Paul, at least as far as sex is concerned.
 
2014-07-15 11:21:51 PM  

Callous: I can tell you that even if there was some kind of indesputable proof that it's not a choice many would not accept it and many more would still say "God says it's bad so you still shouldn't do it".


Some Christians have said that if homosexuality really were genetic, and there were a test for it, that would be the only case in which abortion should be permitted.
 
2014-07-15 11:31:00 PM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Here's the thing.  We don't really CARE whether you hate us or not.  We care what you do to us.  You can hate, hate, hate your neighbor across the street for his black skin, or love, love, love him because you think he's the bee's knees.  Doesn't matter.  What does matter is whether you burn a cross on his lawn, or slash his tires.  If you do, then you are an asshole and you need to be stopped.

And when the police come to arrest you for setting his house on fire, you crying, "There is no hate or malice involved!  Some of my best friends are black!" isn't going to matter.  You're still a farking arsonist, and you still are going to rot in jail.

Then why is "NO H8TE!!!!!!" the rallying cry to oppose any anti-gay laws?  If you don't care, why is it the cornerstone of your whole argument against those laws?


Because "hate" is a convenient shorthand for the crap you guys do.  All of your actions are consistent with hatred, regardless of whether or not that's what you really feel in your hearts.  Whether or not they are actually motivated by hatred, your words and actions are hateful in nature.
 
2014-07-15 11:32:24 PM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...:  When they're family or friends, I try to help them reduce the (secular) damage to their own lives. If they want to change, I support them in that. (How to change being a felon doesn't make sense, but it does on the first two.) Their souls aren't mine to judge.

So if they wish to continue being a serial killer or child rapist you are okay with that because who are you to judge?

If you cannot grasp the difference between something two consenting adults do together and something a criminal inflicts upon an unwilling victim, then you are not fit to participate in this conversation.

You are the one that said you didn't believe in sin.


Uh, no.
 
2014-07-15 11:55:40 PM  

Callous: Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.


From a scientific point of view, this is demonstrably wrong, much like belief that the world was literally created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

You are free to believe that God made Adam from dust and Eve from his rib.  I respect your religious beliefs, whether or not I share all of them.  You are also more than welcome to teach about Adam and Eve in Sunday school.  When you try to influence what public schools teach about evolution, however, then we have a problem, because you're trying to base public policy on your unscientific beliefs.

The same applies to homosexuality.  You can BELIEVE whatever you like about it.  But when it comes to public policy, such as hiring or firing professors at a university which accepts public funds, then you trying to set policy by unscientific religious beliefs is a problem.

Basing public policy on the fallacy (again, from a scientific standpoint) that homosexuality is a choice is just as wrong (and contrary to participating in a pluralistic civil society) as trying to force public schools to teach Biblical creation.

/And all of this is merely by-the-by because homosexuality isn't something that should be punished or discriminated against, even if it WERE a choice.
 
2014-07-15 11:56:19 PM  

patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.


To be, "love the sinner but not the sin" would mean to actually hire them. Hiring them doesn't mean you condone what they do in the bedroom.

These assholes really make it hard for me to be a Christian.
 
2014-07-16 12:07:41 AM  

ciberido: Callous: Telling someone that wrong behavior is wrong does not imply that someone is less human.  Most Christians do not believe that homosexuality is a facet of one's personality and therefore is merely another wrong behavior to be discontinued.

From a scientific point of view, this is demonstrably wrong, much like belief that the world was literally created in six days only a few thousand years ago.

You are free to believe that God made Adam from dust and Eve from his rib.  I respect your religious beliefs, whether or not I share all of them.  You are also more than welcome to teach about Adam and Eve in Sunday school.  When you try to influence what public schools teach about evolution, however, then we have a problem, because you're trying to base public policy on your unscientific beliefs.

The same applies to homosexuality.  You can BELIEVE whatever you like about it.  But when it comes to public policy, such as hiring or firing professors at a university which accepts public funds, then you trying to set policy by unscientific religious beliefs is a problem.

Basing public policy on the fallacy (again, from a scientific standpoint) that homosexuality is a choice is just as wrong (and contrary to participating in a pluralistic civil society) as trying to force public schools to teach Biblical creation.

/And all of this is merely by-the-by because homosexuality isn't something that should be punished or discriminated against, even if it WERE a choice.


If you had read the rest of my posts you would know that you are preaching to the choir. But as several others you read what I explained, assumed it was also my beliefs and attacked me for it.
 
2014-07-16 12:31:50 AM  

Callous: patrick767: You don't have to accept absolutely everything someone does, but I'd argue that you do have to accept who they are as a person in order to love them. Sexuality is an incredibly important aspect of our lives.

I have heard pedophiles make that same argument but I'm at work so I'm not going to look up or link ...


And Hitler was a vegetarian.
 
2014-07-16 12:38:21 AM  

Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.


And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.
 
2014-07-16 12:39:16 AM  

Graffito: Callous: Bawdy George: So misunderstanding = hate?


No, but telling someone that an innate, fundamental aspect of their identity is an offense against God = hate. As much as Christians would like to avoid admitting it. Oh, wait, I forgot - "love the sinner, hate the sin" makes it all better!

Right?

When you don't believe it's an aspect of their identity anymore than being an alcoholic would be, than no it's not.

Is that like how Hobby Lobby believes that IUDs are abortiofacients despite what the Am. College of OB/GYN says?


Very much so, yes.
 
2014-07-16 12:43:57 AM  

ciberido: Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.

And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.


You really need to read the whole thread before responding to random posts.
 
2014-07-16 01:23:08 AM  

Callous: ciberido: Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.

And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.

You really need to read the whole thread before responding to random posts.


No, I really don't.
 
2014-07-16 01:27:03 AM  

Danger Avoid Death: Duke_leto_Atredes: Danger Avoid Death: Gunny Highway: Magorn: Boerne SHOULD have been controlling in the Hobby Lobby case but wasn't so where we are now is anybody's guess

The backside of another dune.  Who knows what is on the other side.

[img.tfd.com image 600x338]

Sandworms. Lots and lots of sandworms. Wormsign even the likes of which even God has never seen.

well ok, they don't have to hire rug munchers and fudge packers, but they don't get any federal money either. Accreditation should be based solely on the academic program. stop forcing the homosexual agenda on every single group, organization and business. don't like them go else ware.

The ONE guy in this thread I would have expected some Dune banter from, and you have to go and lay that on us. Thanks.


He should have gone with "Baron Vladimir Harkonnen" as his Fark Handle.
 
2014-07-16 01:43:43 AM  

Pattuq: Perhaps it would be better for America to identify as an atheist country, because it is not believers who are guiding its choices.  Drop the facade.


"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ...."


How about YOU assholes drop the façade.
 
2014-07-16 02:12:39 AM  

ciberido: Callous: ciberido: Callous: Not a cop out.  To them it's merely a behavior and not a facet of one's personality.  So not engaging in homosexual behavior is no different than not taking another drink.

And as pointed out, this is objectively incorrect.  So it's not an excuse for anything.

You really need to read the whole thread before responding to random posts.

No, I really don't.


Ok, fine look like an idiot.  I don't really care.
 
2014-07-16 02:35:37 AM  

Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.


Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.
 
2014-07-16 02:46:17 AM  

This text is now purple: qorkfiend: This can't be true. I was informed that the HL decision would never, ever, under any circumstances, be cited in an attempt to justify discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

You were told no such thing. You were told those lawsuits would not win.

\you can indict a ham sandwich


You can find a stack of money guilty of breaking the law. Then you can buy military surplus items with that money, apparently intending one day to use those material on unarmed civilians in your own country.

You can claim that a dime store that explicity sells timewasting trinkets has religious beliefs that trump the medical needs of actual humans.

You can claim that a multinational corporation has the right of free speech.
 
2014-07-16 02:54:36 AM  
Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the ni&&er, hate his black skin?"
 
2014-07-16 02:56:06 AM  

highwayrun: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.


Explained it before, it's the behavior, not the people.  And I'm not going to go around again about how they don't get that it's not chosen behavior.

You should really endeavor to understand what you are accusing them of before you do it.  They don't hate you.  They don't understand you.
 
2014-07-16 03:06:03 AM  

highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the attractive and successful African-American, hate his black skin?"


They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.
 
2014-07-16 03:27:25 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Callous: I May Be Crazy But...: Not all Very few Christians hate gays.

But many believe that homosexuality is a sin.  Some don't.  There are many many different Christian sects with different beliefs.

And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Nope. They justify their bigotry by claiming that I am an abomination before their God. That's me. You think I am an abomination before the God you claim is all love, then you hate me. It's okay. I am in good company.

Explained it before, it's the behavior, not the people.  And I'm not going to go around again about how they don't get that it's not chosen behavior.

You should really endeavor to understand what you are accusing them of before you do it.  They don't hate you.  They don't understand you.


By this logic, being savagely beaten by a retarded man shouldn't hurt at all since he does it from a place of ignorance and not hate.

I have been on the receiving end of that cudgel and from the ground it is indistinguishable from hate, done under the auspices of an all-loving God.
 
2014-07-16 03:36:23 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the attractive and successful African-American, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


I asked for an explanation and I got a clear and succinct one. Thank you.

Their willful ignorance does not obligate me to tolerate their actively hateful behavior.
 
2014-07-16 10:35:29 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the attractive and successful African-American, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


Their lack of touch with reality is not anyone else's problem but their own... And, it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing still amounts to hate, even if they're delusional enough to believe otherwise... Not being self-aware enough to recognize the hate within oneself just makes it all the worse, not better in any way...
 
2014-07-16 11:05:23 AM  

Callous: highwayrun: Would someone please explain how "Don't hate the sinner, hate the sin" is in any way different from "Don't hate the attractive and successful African-American, hate his black skin?"

They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


Well, it is an "elective behavior", as in the behavior part is elective.
At least in theory those guys don't mind that you want to have gay man sex, they just expect you to keep it in your pants.  Same as you might be naturally tempted towards other "sinful" behaviors and be expected to refrain.  I'm tempted to punch my boss in the face all the time, but I don't.

It's well and good to debate whether or not somebody should refrain from engaging in a behavior that isn't hurting anyone, and whether or not it's any of your business; but you're out of "sinner vs sin" territory and into "is it a sin or not" territory.

See, the n-word literally can't change his black skin, but a gay person can keep it suppressed and deal with all the emotional issues like a man, or something.  It's fair to say there's a difference between those two arguments, even if they're both bad arguments for different reasons.
 
2014-07-16 11:17:32 AM  

serial_crusher: See, the n-word literally can't change his black skin


You've never heard of Michael Jackson?
 
2014-07-16 11:37:53 AM  

highwayrun: You can claim that a multinational corporation has the right of free speech.


That is an angle I hadn't thought of before--even if we are forced to consider corporations to be people with rights, can't we at least say that some of them are not American citizens, have no right to participate in American politics, and are subject to deportation?
 
2014-07-16 11:46:52 AM  

stan unusual: A central element of higher education in a pluralistic society like the USA has been (often in fact but always at least in theory) that it should include exposure to a wider world of ideas, people and values than what the student brings to the institution and to promote the student's ability to respect, learn from, and collaborate with, people whose ideas, culture and values may differ from theirs. Faculty must have those skills to be qualified to teach in higher education founded on that central element irrespective of their knowledge and skills concerning their subject matter. That's not a matter of partisan political debate, or religious debate etc., nor do you have to adopt or even approve of everyone of those people, cultures or ideas you are expected to be exposed to, but it is fair and appropriate to demand that your students aren't ignorant of those things if your institution desires accreditation.


I've always disagreed with that being a necessary goal of higher education.  Surely there's a way to experience diversity and learn to get along with people in a way that doesn't cost $12,000 a semester.  If I'm paying for an engineering degree, I expect to stay on task and learn me some engineering.
Really it's a good thing for everybody in society to learn, not just the college-bound.  You can't really get that in high school due to the rampant immaturity.  I've always kind of been in favor of a mandatory military/civil service period for 1 or 2 years after high school, like they do in Switzerland.  Maybe that would work?
 
2014-07-16 11:56:49 AM  

serial_crusher: Well, it is an "elective behavior", as in the behavior part is elective.


Despite my flippant Michael Jackson reply above, perhaps a more accurate analogy would instead be to left-handed people (who were also once discriminated against and treated as sinful and wrong)... "I love left-handed people! I just hate the awful sin of writing with one's left hand! If only those silly lefties would learn to totally suppress their innate natures and force themselves to use their non-dominant hand, I wouldn't have to keep treating them as evil, subhuman filth!"

But, it can work with the race analogy, as well... Some racists claim not to hate black people for their skin color, but because they "act black"... If they can learn to "act white" instead, they have no problem with them!
 
2014-07-16 12:22:54 PM  
My favorite part: We offer students extraordinary access to leading-edge opportunities for intellectual, professional, and leadership development to address the increasingly complex challenges of a global society.

Do they not understand that our "global society" includes gay people?
 
2014-07-16 12:25:21 PM  

Callous: They believe that homosexuality is an elective behavior and not an unchangeable facet of one's personality.


And they're completely wrong about that.  They shouldn't be able to use incorrect/archaic beliefs to avoid federal anti-discrimination law.
 
2014-07-16 12:29:28 PM  

Callous: patrick767: Callous:
And stop throwing the "hate" word around.  For 99.9% of the people that believe that homosexuality is a sin there is no hate or malice involved.  All you do is drive a wedge in further by calling them names.  All it does is demonstrate to them how little you understand them while you scream and cry that they don't understand you.

Hate may be too strong of a word for many people. On the other hand I call bullshiat on most of the anti-gay Christians who claim to love gay people. They love to spout "hate the sin, love the sinner", but in many Christians' attitudes toward and treatment of gay people, I don't see anything resembling love. Actions count a hell of a lot more than words. Besides, who can love someone without accepting them? Who we choose to love is an integral part of who we are as a person. If we can't accept that aspect of someone's life, then I think it's bullshiat to claim we love them.

Do you hate alcoholics?  How about drug addicts?  Any of your friends or relatives have a criminal record?

You can object to the behavior and not hate the person.  Love doesn't require accepting everything about someone.  Why is it so black or white with you?


10/10
 
Displayed 50 of 253 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report