Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Christophobic Censorship

Page 4 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

25 Jan 2012, 6:28 pm

Image

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Image


He had two guardians, Mary & Joseph, but only one Father.


Hi iamnotaparakeet,

You mean one dead-beat daddy shirked-off???

Tadzio

Image



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Jan 2012, 12:51 am

So, the sense I'm getting from some of these posts is that bullying is OK as long as the bullied party has an opinion or belongs to a group that holds an opinion that some people find objectionable? Am I misreading that?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

26 Jan 2012, 1:03 am

Dox47 wrote:
So, the sense I'm getting from some of these posts is that bullying is OK as long as the bullied party has an opinion or belongs to a group that holds an opinion that some people find objectionable? Am I misreading that?


Hi Dox47,

Look how far the Supreme Court goes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

Then look at school rules for "public" religious based schools.

You only want the flip without the flop???

Tadzio



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

26 Jan 2012, 10:30 am

Dox47 wrote:
So, the sense I'm getting from some of these posts is that bullying is OK as long as the bullied party has an opinion or belongs to a group that holds an opinion that some people find objectionable? Am I misreading that?
keet's article mentions no bullying.


_________________
.


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

26 Jan 2012, 11:19 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
keet's article mentions no bullying.


I'm not talking about his article, but some of the replies in the thread. Some of the replies seemed to be saying that bullying was okay if the bullied person was religious and their religion held anti-homosexual beliefs. I'm of the opinion that bullying is bullying and that it is always wrong, hence why I asked for clarification on the comments.

'keet was viciously cyberbullied last year when an Irish lesbian Aspie took exception to his religious view on homosexuality and used personal information she gleaned from running down his social networking sites to go after 'keet and his wife using their real personal info and photographs. Some of it happened right here on WP, and the fallout from the attacks continues to this day. I really don't want to rehash that whole mess, but I bring it up as to demonstrate that this isn't some abstract idea but something that does happen and did happen in this very community, and the victim is right here talking about it. (just say the word 'keet and I'll edit this paragraph out if you want that era to stay buried)


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

26 Jan 2012, 1:16 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
keet's article mentions no bullying.


I'm not talking about his article, but some of the replies in the thread. Some of the replies seemed to be saying that bullying was okay if the bullied person was religious and their religion held anti-homosexual beliefs. I'm of the opinion that bullying is bullying and that it is always wrong, hence why I asked for clarification on the comments.


A lot of people who get bullied because of their religion would be left alone if they just left people alone instead of preaching at them.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


Sunshine7
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 218

26 Jan 2012, 2:16 pm

I have seen maybe 1 or 2 threads about supposed religious zealotry on PPR, but the atheists conversely think that they have free reign on openly lambasting religion. Hell, there's one right now entitled Wouldn't it be wonderful if... discussing how public practice of religion should be banned.

I've seen a lot of atheists who love to play the Spanish Inquisition card, faulting present day ordinary religious folk and present day religion based on a.) the wrongdoings of a long dead majority, such as extremist homophobic people, religious fanatics b.) the wrong doings of a present-day minority or c.) fictional characters that directors like to cast as villains in a movie so that the hero can machine-gun them without any qualms.

I like a good action flick as much as the next man, but most religious people are pretty decent folk, precisely because their religion requires them to be so. Even smile and turn the other cheek when atheists accuse them of being irrational, sheeple, having stupid beliefs, pointing out paradoxes and contradictions in their holy writ, and so on. The atheists may be right in reality, but it's not important to be right all the time. Humanity has come a long way for Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus to live in the same society without trying hacking at each other with broad swords; let's not spoil that achievement.



Tim_Tex
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 46,689
Location: Houston, Texas

26 Jan 2012, 3:19 pm

Sunshine7 wrote:
I have seen maybe 1 or 2 threads about supposed religious zealotry on PPR, but the atheists conversely think that they have free reign on openly lambasting religion. Hell, there's one right now entitled Wouldn't it be wonderful if... discussing how public practice of religion should be banned.

I've seen a lot of atheists who love to play the Spanish Inquisition card, faulting present day ordinary religious folk and present day religion based on a.) the wrongdoings of a long dead majority, such as extremist homophobic people, religious fanatics b.) the wrong doings of a present-day minority or c.) fictional characters that directors like to cast as villains in a movie so that the hero can machine-gun them without any qualms.

I like a good action flick as much as the next man, but most religious people are pretty decent folk, precisely because their religion requires them to be so. Even smile and turn the other cheek when atheists accuse them of being irrational, sheeple, having stupid beliefs, pointing out paradoxes and contradictions in their holy writ, and so on. The atheists may be right in reality, but it's not important to be right all the time. Humanity has come a long way for Christians and Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus to live in the same society without trying hacking at each other with broad swords; let's not spoil that achievement.


Amen, brother!! !


_________________
Who’s better at math than a robot? They’re made of math!