- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Okay, on the incredibly miniscule, sub-atomically small chance you're not trolling, here's why you're link was pants on head retarded. And just for the record, you could have spared yourself the embarrassment (unless you're trolling, in which case you're achieving your objective right now) by first going to wikipedia to understand discrimination.
Your decision to link to the DP home page was poo-in-hair stupid because Christians aren't being prevented from participating on Debate Politics!
Do you understand that now, or do you need a six year old to draw a picture for you?
And again, all that you're trying to do is narrow down the definition of discrimination. Sorry, but not working with me. Might with others. But I'm not that naïve. But here's the funny thing. Christians, and other religious minded folks were being prevented from discussing their religion by people that kept heckling them and denouncing them and their beliefs. Not one single Christian or any other religious minded person could have a decent discussion about their religion or other religions without someone making such an issue of it that the threads inevitably degraded into garbage and the original purpose of the thread got lost. Even when Christians were simply talking about different aspects of the Bible and not denouncing anyone or being asses or anything else they would inevitably be interrupted by those that hate religion and their discussions would get drowned out. So much so that that the Moderators had to separate Religion and Philosophy and put the religion section under a special rule set. So in essence they were essentially being prevented from debating religion here at DP.
Oh sure, they could still post here at DP about pretty much anything else. But they couldn't post here about religion because they would be drowned out. It's much akin to LGBT's being able to live together but never marry. They can do part of something, but not all of it. Another example that is much akin to this is where anti-gun folks try to make a claim that so long as you have a gun then your gun rights aren't being violated. Being able to exercise only part of something because someone else won't let you exercise the other part is a part of the very essence of what me and you are talking about. Right?