Child suspended for his religious beliefs

[Serge A. Storms]

1) I like internet language, it can be used to express a point in new ways not traditionally recognized in the English language.

2) You used citations to show that showed that not all Christians are against abortion, not all atheists are for abortion, and gay marriage is legal in some places. I never said that any of that wasn't true.

3) I don't deny that "Modern Christians" as you define them are "Christian," at least in that they define themselves as Christian, I'm simply pointing out that the definition of "Modern Christianity" that reduces everything to "Jesus loves you, love other people," is neither an honest representation of Christianity as the Bible defines Christianity or how a huge portion of the population sees it. Furthermore, suggesting that "Modern Christians" have no issue with gay rights, abortion, etc. seems to leave out the part where most states haven't legalized gay marriage and abortion remains one of the most heavily debated topics to this day. By that logic, such things wouldn't even be an issue.

1. You say there is no such thing as "modern Christianity", but are content to use "internet language"? What? So Christians aren't allowed to move with the times but the entire basis of communication in the western world has to adapt because of internet memes?

2. No, what you did do was bring up the subject of gays and abortionists. What I did was demonstrate that you were wrong in your claim that "The God that apparently wants people to stand on sidewalks with "abortion is murder signs?"" etc, and your general assertion that modern Christians think that way.

3. States, laws, and such things are not controlled purely by Christians, but by law makers. Remember that abortion is completely legal, and that it is a minority of vocal people (not just Christians, as I have proved), calling for its removal. Gay marriage requires a change in the law so profound it needs to be seriously considered and debated. Do not forget that marriage consititutes one of the corner-stones of modern society and common law across the world - property, ownership, parental rights, etc. ALL of that will need to be adjusted. Besides, if you think that even the Christian hardliners are treating gays bad now just take a look at what Stalin did to them. By logic, gay marriage and gay rights has always been an issue in every single country in the world, be it atheist, Muslim, Christian, Pagan, Hindu... Indeed it is only the Christian countries which have so far legalized it.

1) I never said people can't call themselves "Christians," but I'd honestly say that there's a pretty giant leap from Christianity in the Bible to "Modern Christianity," beyond just "moving with the times." There's plenty of people today that at least take the entire New Testament literally and avoid the Old Testament, that's still closer to Bible Christianity.

2) Again, I pointed out a few commonly recognized groups, I never said all Christians were pro-life or against gay marriage, I was pointing out that there are plenty of "Modern Christians" that do such things, unless you are saying that those people aren't Christians in the same sense that "Modern Christians" as you defined them are Christian.

3) All of marriage would have to be adjusted so that two dudes could hook up? I can assure you that, while they make up the majority, Democrats do not make up 90% of the House, and even many Democrats won't vote for gay marriage because they want to get re-elected. Republicans practically can't vote for it and stay elected if they're coming from a red state. As far as the U.S. actually legalizing it, that's a great thing, and a reason to believe that the ideals that built the U.S. aren't dead, but it's not going to be legalized in a red state any time soon.

 

[Rokar333]

I gave up serious argument in this thread at least a page ago. Now I just see this thread as an easy way to boost my post count.

The last time a thread seriously addressed the issue of what Christians really were as opposed to what atheists thought they were, a lot of people ended up banned (I've been lurking for like a year before I made my account).

The last time someone made a thread explaining modern Christianity it was bombarded by antitheists before the silent majority of sane atheists could even take a look at it. So far + 10.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

As Yahtzee (bless his soul) might say "you're projecting hard enough to make Powerpoint presentations"

Seriously, you're quoting Yahtzee now? Just because he contributes videos to the site doesn't mean we actually have to take him seriously.

Though it would be better for the thread if you kept arguing with cuddly_tomato, making this a thread with two contributors who both admit to not fully knowing what they're arguing about. I mean really, this is the religion that I renounced because it advocated giving everybody second chances, and the whole "God forgives everyone" thing and you are arguing that it is too close minded?

Jesus, I'm no troll expert, but you're not doing it right.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

As Yahtzee (bless his soul) might say "you're projecting hard enough to make Powerpoint presentations"

Seriously, you're quoting Yahtzee now? Just because he contributes videos to the site doesn't mean we actually have to take him seriously.

Though it would be better for the thread if you kept arguing with cuddly_tomato, making this a thread with two contributors who both admit to not fully knowing what they're arguing about. I mean really, this is the religion that I renounced because it advocated giving everybody second chances, and the whole "God forgives everyone" thing and you are arguing that it is too close minded?

I know exactly what I am arguing for, if not about - simple tolerance and respect for cultures and creeds which return the favour. Why that is a big ask from certain people, Mr Storms, is something that a shrinks couch should probably try to solve.

Let me get this straight; the vast majority of Americans are "Modern Christian," they're pro-choice, for gay marriage, accept other religions, and have wiped away the feelings of xenophobia and jingoism that has followed us through the Cold War era.

The silent majority, as long as those things are not shoved in their face?

Yes.

That's speaking for a lot of Americans considering every poll taken on abortion since it became an issue decades ago has suggested a dead heat between pro-choice and pro-life, while gay marriage has only touched a couple of states, and couldn't even make it in California.

 

[Rokar333]

but it's not going to be legalized in a red state any time soon.

I'll just address this last bit somewhat seriously, since it doesn't have to do with religion. However this is a democracy. It should totally be a state's decision based on a popular vote, if the people don't want gay marriage why should it be forced on them (hell, even the majority of California didn't want gay marriage). People say it is about human rights, but last time I checked there was no "right to marriage", where did that bullshit come from?

EDIT: I'm not against gay marriage, I just don't think it's a right to be determined by the federal government.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

but it's not going to be legalized in a red state any time soon.

I'll just address this last bit somewhat seriously, since it doesn't have to do with religion. However this is a democracy. It should totally be a state's decision based on a popular vote, if the people don't want gay marriage why should it be forced on them (hell, even the majority of California didn't want gay marriage). People say it is about human rights, but last time I checked there was no "right to marriage", where did that bullshit come from?

A troll that can't go five posts without actually addressing the topic at hand? If you can fail at trolling, you should probably kill yourself.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) I never said people can't call themselves "Christians," but I'd honestly say that there's a pretty giant leap from Christianity in the Bible to "Modern Christianity," beyond just "moving with the times." There's plenty of people today that at least take the entire New Testament literally and avoid the Old Testament, that's still closer to Bible Christianity.

2) Again, I pointed out a few commonly recognized groups, I never said all Christians were pro-life or against gay marriage, I was pointing out that there are plenty of "Modern Christians" that do such things, unless you are saying that those people aren't Christians in the same sense that "Modern Christians" as you defined them are Christian.

3) All of marriage would have to be adjusted so that two dudes could hook up? I can assure you that, while they make up the majority, Democrats do not make up 90% of the House, and even many Democrats won't vote for gay marriage because they want to get re-elected. Republicans practically can't vote for it and stay elected if they're coming from a red state. As far as the U.S. actually legalizing it, that's a great thing, and a reason to believe that the ideals that built the U.S. aren't dead, but it's not going to be legalized in a red state any time soon.

1) That's a bad thing? I thought you were going to tear into the Bible a few posts ago, now you are complaining that modern Christianity doesn't follow the Bible closely enough?

2) Yes, a few Christians are homophobic. So are a few atheists. And Muslims. And Pagans. And Hindus. And agnostics. That kind of shoots down the notion that religion is the driving factor. I know people jump on certain Bible passages, but as has been stated very few take those literally, and those few who do are abhorrent individuals who would be abhorrent whether they were Bible thumpers or not.

3) If by "hooking up" you mean for two men to automatically share all assets and property rights, have automatic power of attorney over the other if the other was ever severely injured, have automatic next-of-kin rights should the other ever die, have automatic tax sharing, automatic shared access to welfare and benefits, have automatic legal protection from domestic violence, and allllll the other things which you can talk to a lawyer about, yes it will require a pretty big legal shake-up. I know same-sex marriages are happening, when the same-sex divorces start you are going to see the legal system get extremely messy.

 

[Rokar333]

A troll that can't go five posts without actually addressing the topic at hand? If you can fail at trolling, you should probably kill yourself.

You're trying to wrestle gay marriage into the topic at hand, so I'm arguing against it. The original topic was whether a student should have been suspended for disrupting the classroom in such a manner, so you have no right to talk.

I'll let the suicide thing go because I called you a fucktard, now we're even. It's funny how life works.

 

[The Keeper]

If the kid truly believes in what he is doing, he's an idiot. If he doesn't, he is just a sheep.

Either way, I don't care.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

1) I never said people can't call themselves "Christians," but I'd honestly say that there's a pretty giant leap from Christianity in the Bible to "Modern Christianity," beyond just "moving with the times." There's plenty of people today that at least take the entire New Testament literally and avoid the Old Testament, that's still closer to Bible Christianity.

2) Again, I pointed out a few commonly recognized groups, I never said all Christians were pro-life or against gay marriage, I was pointing out that there are plenty of "Modern Christians" that do such things, unless you are saying that those people aren't Christians in the same sense that "Modern Christians" as you defined them are Christian.

3) All of marriage would have to be adjusted so that two dudes could hook up? I can assure you that, while they make up the majority, Democrats do not make up 90% of the House, and even many Democrats won't vote for gay marriage because they want to get re-elected. Republicans practically can't vote for it and stay elected if they're coming from a red state. As far as the U.S. actually legalizing it, that's a great thing, and a reason to believe that the ideals that built the U.S. aren't dead, but it's not going to be legalized in a red state any time soon.

1) That's a bad thing? I thought you were going to tear into the Bible a few posts ago, now you are complaining that modern Christianity doesn't follow the Bible closely enough?

2) Yes, a few Christians are homophobic. So are a few atheists. And Muslims. And Pagans. And Hindus. And agnostics. That kind of shoots down the notion that religion is the driving factor. I know people jump on certain Bible passages, but as has been stated very few take those literally, and those few who do are abhorrent individuals who would be abhorrent whether they were Bible thumpers or not.

3) If by "hooking up" you mean for two men to automatically share all assets and property rights, have automatic power of attorney over the other if the other was ever severely injured, have automatic next-of-kin rights should the other ever die, have automatic tax sharing, automatic shared access to welfare and benefits, have automatic legal protection from domestic violence, and allllll the other things which you can talk to a lawyer about, yes it will require a pretty big legal shake-up. I know same-sex marriages are happening, when the same-sex divorces start you are going to see the legal system get extremely messy.

1) Depends on how you define "bad thing." Like I said, I personally believe anyone that believes the Bible should be taken literally is out of their fucking mind, but the Bible is also supposed to represent God's word for Christians. If a Christian believes that the Bible is more than just a bunch of sand people scribbling commands for idiot followers, than it would be a very bad thing to ignore the Bible.

2) Whoa, hold on there just a minute, "a few" Christians being homophobic would not be enough to prevent legalization of gay marriage. And the Bible does directly state that homosexuality is wrong. Many people believe that, and that's why gay marriage is where it's at right now instead of being legalized after the giant controversy in it (that really started up during the end of Bush's first term, which was no coincidence)

3) It wouldn't take that much "legal shakeup", unless Congress decided that they needed to arbitrarily change every tax code in the books to suit same-sex marriage. As it is, it will get messy with same-sex divorce, but it always gets messy, anyway. I'm of the opinion that marriage as a religious ceremony shouldn't be an institution of the government and the tax benefits should be taken out of the books, personally (I'm not optimistic about any of that coming to be, of course), and part of that is because it always gets messy.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

A troll that can't go five posts without actually addressing the topic at hand? If you can fail at trolling, you should probably kill yourself.

You're trying to wrestle gay marriage into the topic at hand, so I'm arguing against it. The original topic was whether a student should have been suspended for disrupting the classroom in such a manner, so you have no right to talk.

I'll let the suicide thing go because I called you a fucktard, now we're even. It's funny how life works.

Seriously, you're a troll that's trying to equate being a troll to playing devil's advocate, set yourself on fire and jump out of a building.

 

[FallenJellyDoughnut]

Who the fuck believes in a Flying Spagetti Monster who thinks Pirates are devine beings?!

 

[Pifflestick]

Well if its his religion then there is nothing the school can do.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Oh for crying out loud.

Glad he got suspended. It's not even a REAL religion yet. For it to be properly real you need at LEAST 10 million followers and 1500 churches/places of worship with at LEAST 3 big impressive temples.

Otherwise no, you're just a crazy person.

Well if its his religion then there is nothing the school can do.

And yes there is because theres expressing religion and then being a douche. This is on the same level as a muslim coming to school in full black robes and viel. Or a christian coming in full mass robes.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

1) Depends on how you define "bad thing." Like I said, I personally believe anyone that believes the Bible should be taken literally is out of their fucking mind, but the Bible is also supposed to represent God's word for Christians. If a Christian believes that the Bible is more than just a bunch of sand people scribbling commands for idiot followers, than it would be a very bad thing to ignore the Bible.

2) Whoa, hold on there just a minute, "a few" Christians being homophobic would not be enough to prevent legalization of gay marriage. And the Bible does directly state that homosexuality is wrong. Many people believe that, and that's why gay marriage is where it's at right now instead of being legalized after the giant controversy in it (that really started up during the end of Bush's first term, which was no coincidence)

3) It wouldn't take that much "legal shakeup", unless Congress decided that they needed to arbitrarily change every tax code in the books to suit same-sex marriage. As it is, it will get messy with same-sex divorce, but it always gets messy, anyway. I'm of the opinion that marriage as a religious ceremony shouldn't be an institution of the government and the tax benefits should be taken out of the books, personally (I'm not optimistic about any of that coming to be, of course), and part of that is because it always gets messy.

1) No True Scotsman fallacy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman].

2) You are back to blaming Christians exclusively for opposition to gay issues. As I have proven, all creeds and cultures demonstrate opposition to gay issues, including atheists. Quite simply, voting against gay marriage does not make someone a Christian. So you have now fallen foul of the Fallacy of the False Cause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29].

 

[Gileseypops]

while I find the very concept of Pastafarianism absolutely bonkers and detect a curious hint of self-parody, no school or workplace or....whatever can claim religious equality without holding it just as important and established as christianity or islam.

I will summarise my 'two cents' as such.....Fnar fnar! xx

 

[jasoncyrus]

while I find the very concept of Pastafarianism absolutely bonkers and detect a curious hint of self-parody, no school or workplace or....whatever can claim religious equality without holding it just as important and established as christianity or islam.

I will summarise my 'two cents' as such.....Fnar fnar! xx

Well actually they can since its not a "recognised religion", a government would have to legally recognise it (include it in census forms etc) for companies, etc to be liable.

The spaghetti monster gimmick is simply an internet fad. You'll always get idiots trying to take fads one step too far, this is just another case of it

 

[gigastrike]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

How is believing in an invisible man sillier than believing in an omnipotent food...thing? And where do pirates come into the picture? This isn't about how improbable it is, this is about the fact that he's putting us on! The kid is just doing it for fun/attention and, even if he isn't, you can bet that not one single other person in the religion actually agrees with him.

 

[jasoncyrus]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

How is believing in an invisible man sillier than believing in an omnipotent food...thing? And where do pirates come into the picture? This isn't about how improbable it is, this is about the fact that he's putting us on! The kid is just doing it for fun/attention and, even if he isn't, you can bet that not one single other person in the religion actually agrees with him.

Its more probable because if push comes to shove its theoretically possible to prove that a being with the abilities of god could theoretically exist with a high enough level of technology. A spaghetti monster would involve the process of injecting life into a substance that nevr had it to begin with. Aka, magic.

 

[gigastrike]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

How is believing in an invisible man sillier than believing in an omnipotent food...thing? And where do pirates come into the picture? This isn't about how improbable it is, this is about the fact that he's putting us on! The kid is just doing it for fun/attention and, even if he isn't, you can bet that not one single other person in the religion actually agrees with him.

Its more probable because if push comes to shove its theoretically possible to prove that a being with the abilities of god could theoretically exist with a high enough level of technology. A spaghetti monster would involve the process of injecting life into a substance that nevr had it to begin with. Aka, magic.

1: The image of the flying spagetti monster is definatly funnier than god.

2: I already said that it's irrelevant to my point.