• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

To all Christians who think that they are being persecuted in America[W:610] (1 Viewer)

roguenuke said:
Please show a law rather than individual choice in school districts when it comes to Christmas decorations.

As for the hobby lobby case, it is still different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well...

Supreme Court rulings, starting with Lynch v. Donnelly in 1984, have permitted religious themes in government-funded Christmas displays that had "legitimate secular purposes". Since these rulings have been splintered and have left governments uncertain of their limits, many such displays have included secular elements such as reindeer, snowmen and elves along with the religious elements.[48] Other recent court cases have brought up additional issues such as the inclusion of Christmas carols in public school performances, but none of these cases have reached the US Supreme Court.

A controversy regarding these issues arose in 2002, when the New York City public school system banned the display of Nativity scenes but allowed the display of less overtly religious symbols such as Christmas trees, Hanukkah menorahs, and the Muslim star and crescent.[49] The school system successfully defended its policy in Skoros v. City of New York (2006).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_controversy#United_States
Click to expand...
 
zyzygy said:
The school dress code.
Click to expand...
And what detirimes what the criteria is for determing the dresscode?

Are we back in 3rd grade that we are playing stupid semantics?

Im defending why students should be allowed to have opinions, explain why they shouldnt be

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
And what detirimes what the criteria is for determing the dresscode?

Are we back in 3rd grade that we are playing stupid semantics?

Im defending why students should be allowed to have opinions, explain why they shouldnt be

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am assuming that different schools have different dress codes. In the UK it's the board of school governors who decide.
 
trouble13 said:
What dictates what is allowable by the dress code?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Past precedence which has said that schools need to show basically a valid reason related to maintaining order and discipline within the school. There have been very few cases, some ruling with the school, some with students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
Well...
Click to expand...

Those would not be laws banning Christian music or other things from school celebrations, but rather rulings on whether individual cases of such displays were in violation or not. The challenges are generally going to come from someone complaining about the inclusion of such elements, not their exclusion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Past precedence which has said that schools need to show basically a valid reason related to maintaining order and discipline within the school. There have been very few cases, some ruling with the school, some with students.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

zyzygy said:
I am assuming that different schools have different dress codes. In the UK it's the board of school governors who decide.
Click to expand...
Im going to adress both of you in this response to avoide being redundant.

The schools argument is that it needs the authority to maintain discipline which i have admitted is argument that is not without merit.

I have a difference of opinion on this matter in that school is an institution where we should be teaching people how to challenge accepted norms in a civil manner.

There is a balancing act in play between these two things. It is also the schools obligation to explain the accepted norms and why they are acvepted as being the normal. This dicotamy is what learning is.

Now as far as something like what the criteria is for the dress code standard brings us back full circle in this conversation. Community standards set the code.

If you live in a community thats perdominately christain and they want to put up christmass decorations, that should be allowed. If there is a militant athesist in the group who wants to put up his own decorations that conflict with theirs, that should be tolerated as well.

Tje end tesult should be the school facilitating an open dialouge beyween the two.

Right and wrong is subjective and its definition is fluid. We should encourage vigirous debate not shut it down.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
LittleNipper said:
It is relevant in that this demonstrates that there has occurred a change.
The schools certainly do talk all about the 4th of July, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution without any impediment. Yet there are likely small children of immigrants offend that their native laws and documents are elaborated about.
Click to expand...
If I'm untangling that last sentence properly, you think it likely that that young children of immigrants are offended by studying the American Revolution and the Constitution? Why would you think that, do you have any evidence to support that? But in any case, it's irrelevant. This is the United States, and learning about our founding and government are important.

You don't care about Liberty. You care only about your own feelings.
Click to expand...
Oh? How did you reach that conclusion?
[quote[ The Constitution clearly states that there are to be no laws prohibiting the free and unhampered expression of religion.[/quote] Correct. And that applies to ALL religions, and is not subject to majority approval. The Constitution also clearly states that the government cannot support any religion. Seriously, you would be fine if your child's school broadcast quotes from the Koran, including and especially those that deny Jesus is the son of God, and lessons stopped for everyone to face Mecca and pray at the appropriate times during the school day (and non-Muslims would not have to pray, but they would need a special note and identify themselves as non-Muslims), and Eid (both of them) were celebrated and Ramadan observed, but no recognition of Christmas or Easter.

I assume you would not be fine with that. Nor would I. But you are fine with Christianity being dominant to the exclusion of others. How do you reconcile "free and unhampered expression of religion" if it doesn't equally apply to all religions?


Clearly, that no longer includes public institutions.

Actually, except that the music teacher would allow us to select Christmas Carols along with Christmas songs, there was no cohering by Christians. It was just a matter of tradition. The children whose parents didn't wish them to participate kept them home for an extra holiday off.[/QUOTE]
 
pinqy said:
If I'm untangling that last sentence properly, you think it likely that that young children of immigrants are offended by studying the American Revolution and the Constitution? Why would you think that, do you have any evidence to support that? But in any case, it's irrelevant. This is the United States, and learning about our founding and government are important.
Click to expand...

Besides, what difference does it make if they're offended? If they don't like it, they're welcome to go back where they came from.
 
Cephus said:
Besides, what difference does it make if they're offended? If they don't like it, they're welcome to go back where they came from.
Click to expand...

There are lots of people who do not want to be offended. Personally I would not be offended if someone refused to bake me a wedding cake just because my next wedding would be my fourth marriage--not that I plan on ending my third marriage anytime soon and remarrying again, but just a what if. But, for some reason, gays have thinner skin and cry like babies when someone says their faith does not condone what they do.
 
Cephus said:
Besides, what difference does it make if they're offended? If they don't like it, they're welcome to go back where they came from.
Click to expand...
See this is what i was talking about in my earlier post. We dont tell people if they are offended go home. Thats as bad as the people who want acquiesce to them.

If they are offended we should challenge them to explain why and have open dialouge. I find many things i thought offended me did not after i spoke to the other side about why they held the position they did.

Its possible to disagree about something without being offended.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
There are lots of people who do not want to be offended. Personally I would not be offended if someone refused to bake me a wedding cake just because my next wedding would be my fourth marriage--not that I plan on ending my third marriage anytime soon and remarrying again, but just a what if. But, for some reason, gays have thinner skin and cry like babies when someone says their faith does not condone what they do.
Click to expand...
To be honest i dont even understand why they feel offended over what you rightly point out is a petty issue.

When i got married i could not find a church to do it because im an athesist. I was not offended. I got married at the courthouse. My family and my wifes family were disappointed but so what. We all managed to live through it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
To be honest i dont even understand why they feel offended over what you rightly point out is a petty issue.

When i got married i could not find a church to do it because im an athesist. I was not offended. I got married at the courthouse. My family and my wifes family were disappointed but so what. We all managed to live through it.
Click to expand...
Why do you think "offense" is the issue? What if marriage was only allowed through a religious ceremony and there was no courthouse option? Or further...what if the clerk in your county refused to issue a marriage license because you're an atheist?

Assuming you would be opposed to that....would it be because you were offended?
 
calamity said:
There are lots of people who do not want to be offended. Personally I would not be offended if someone refused to bake me a wedding cake just because my next wedding would be my fourth marriage--not that I plan on ending my third marriage anytime soon and remarrying again, but just a what if. But, for some reason, gays have thinner skin and cry like babies when someone says their faith does not condone what they do.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that it assumes that straight people, or at least a larger portion of straight people would not feel offended if they faced the same refusal, refusal of a product or service due to their choice in partner to marry. Many, most would. And many of those who would be offended would also report the person who refused service. The thing is, you only see one happen because of statistics, population levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
The problem with this is that it assumes that straight people, or at least a larger portion of straight people would not feel offended if they faced the same refusal, refusal of a product or service due to their choice in partner to marry. Many, most would. And many of those who would be offended would also report the person who refused service. The thing is, you only see one happen because of statistics, population levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I doubt anyone without a huge chip on their shoulder would give a rat's ass if bakery A refused to bake them a cake when bakery B is more than willing to do it and probably ready to deliver it and throw in some cupcakes if you gave them the contract. Be real.
 
pinqy said:
Why do you think "offense" is the issue? What if marriage was only allowed through a religious ceremony and there was no courthouse option? Or further...what if the clerk in your county refused to issue a marriage license because you're an atheist?

Assuming you would be opposed to that....would it be because you were offended?
Click to expand...
I am opposed to those things but the difference is this.

The gov represents all of us without prejudice. The gov must issue a marriage license to anyone who applies and is lawfully qualified.

A preist belongs to a private institution and is within its right to be selective about who they will or will not marry.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
calamity said:
There are lots of people who do not want to be offended. Personally I would not be offended if someone refused to bake me a wedding cake just because my next wedding would be my fourth marriage--not that I plan on ending my third marriage anytime soon and remarrying again, but just a what if. But, for some reason, gays have thinner skin and cry like babies when someone says their faith does not condone what they do.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less who wants not to be offended. Nobody has a right not to be offended. People do have a right to be treated equally and not discriminated against. In the case of the bakers, those people violated privacy laws. They got what they deserved. I don't care what faith someone has, I care how they treat others. Faith is not a get out of reality free card.
 
trouble13 said:
See this is what i was talking about in my earlier post. We dont tell people if they are offended go home. Thats as bad as the people who want acquiesce to them.

If they are offended we should challenge them to explain why and have open dialouge. I find many things i thought offended me did not after i spoke to the other side about why they held the position they did.

Its possible to disagree about something without being offended.
Click to expand...

The problem is, these offended people are incapable of having an intellectual discussion because they only react emotionally. They don't care what the other side has to say, they're children, emotionally crippled and without any interest in challenging their own positions, or even considering them. You act like you're dealing with rational people. You are not.
 
trouble13 said:
I am opposed to those things but the difference is this.

The gov represents all of us without prejudice. The gov must issue a marriage license to anyone who applies and is lawfully qualified.
Click to expand...

Right. And objecting to those, such as Kim Davis, who refuse to issue marriage licenses based on her religion is not due to offence.

A preist belongs to a private institution and is within its right to be selective about who they will or will not marry.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of anyone arguing otherwise.
 
Cephus said:
The problem is, these offended people are incapable of having an intellectual discussion because they only react emotionally. They don't care what the other side has to say, they're children, emotionally crippled and without any interest in challenging their own positions, or even considering them. You act like you're dealing with rational people. You are not.
Click to expand...
Lol touchee
Well played

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
pinqy said:
Right. And objecting to those, such as Kim Davis, who refuse to issue marriage licenses based on her religion is not due to offence.

I am not aware of anyone arguing otherwise.
Click to expand...

Personaly i think the kim davis incident was absurd. She had no standing to prevent them from being married but there were however soecial curcumstances surrounding that and allowances could of been made to accomidate everyone. There was no need to put that woman in jail.

She was obligated to execute her duty without prejudice because she was a pubic servant but the law did change after she took the job. The whole thing could of been resolved by having someone else sign the certificate and let bygons be bygons.

When you legaly compel a bakery to make a cake they dont want to make your in essence arguing otherwise. A bakery is not a gov entity it is a private owned buisiness.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Cephus said:
It's not well played, it's reality and we both know it.
Click to expand...
All i can say is that if you expect to tolerated you have to also tolerate those that you disagree with

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
All i can say is that if you expect to tolerated you have to also tolerate those that you disagree with
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't. The only people I have to tolerate are the tolerable. The idea that everyone gets to get away with anything because if they don't, they'll turn on you is childish. That's a death sentence for society. Sorry you don't care about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom