darth_ender said:
Bingowings said:
darth_ender said:
TheBoost said:
If the issue is "This Christian school has the right to discriminate" then that's a different question. But let's not do some mental hoop jumping to act like it's not discrimination.
If TheBoost is telling me that I have the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood and that there should be protests if anyone wishes to infringe on that right, then maybe I'm starting to see his point.
In reality, equality is a goal for all, but it is unachievable in practice, especially since the definition of equality in each circumstance will forever be in a state of flux.
Regardless of the laws of the land, my church will never perform homosexual marriages. We have the right to discriminate, just like we can discriminate against marriage with animals (with definable personalities, at least). Such is the nature of freedom. There must also be freedom to discriminate, even when at times others find that discrimination offensive. If you thought about the many behaviors you don't approve of, or how many outspoken individuals have lost their jobs due to racist comments, you'd realize that you discriminate, with every legal right to do so.
Every man has the right to join the Muslim Brotherhood as long as he is a Muslim. Just as every gay can get married in a Muslim country...to a member of the opposite sex.
As I pointed out, I meant Nation of Islam, an anti-white Muslim organization which would clearly not grant me entrance. But still, the Muslim Brother would discriminate against me as well, and have the right to do so. There has to be some permission in discrimination.
Anything is possible over time. Though some changes only add emphasis to the fundamental silliness of the organisation.
Oh and Jetrell Fo, I didn't put words in your mouth. I quoted huge chunks of your text, tried to get you to say what you meant by it and then you decided to give up.
You appeared to claim there was bigotry on both sides you appeared to claim there was some point of comparison between acts of violence and suggesting to remove the passages that inspire them from official versions of church scripture (despite the lack of a homosexual manifesto calling for violence against Christians) and when drawn on it you spiraled into knot of circular nonsense which you accused me of looping when I was really trying to straighten it out.
It's not changing history to take those passages out of a church's official editions or to clarify the change in position within the official version. Most church scripture is in some way the result of selection and to various degrees of accuracy translation of other works which still exist in libraries for scholars to examine.
It's not as Warb once implied a call to burn old Bibles but rather to clarify what people of any faith believe now in the books held as the scripture of a contemporary religion. If a faith wants to keep those bits unchallenged they should stop pretending to be peaceful non-violent people because stoning people and burning people is on par with bleaching people and if you deliberately keep that in your official scripture you are party to contemporary violence based on those ancient texts.