Spinoff question--discrimination against Christians?

[TranquilMind]

I don't want to say discrimination. I want to say, less tolerance. And oddly enough, as a Catholic, I often feel that sort of no-tolerance from Protestant Christians along random secular mainstream media. I'm sure other groups might feel the same. But the next time I'm called a canibalistic vampire that worships Mary and cheers for pedophiles by someone claiming to be Christian, it's going to make me wonder where exactly it says in the Bible that only certain 'kinds' of Christianity are okay and some are okay to mock.

 

 

That's ridiculous. I know of precisely NO Christians who would do this. I'm sorry you know of people who claim the name but don't walk the walk.

 

I've corrected even this past week someone who divided "Christians and Catholics" in reference to politics. I stated that Catholics ARE Christians, and should not be separated out.

[SKL]

I would think the intention matters.

 

Well, my original point was that: let's say 15% of Americans don't like hearing "jeez" because they consider it disrespectful to Christianity. While they understand that many of the people saying "jeez" don't even intend to be "taking the Lord's name in vain," they are unhappy with the trend and would like to reverse it. So you start seeing commercials and PSAs and so on, pointing it out and saying it isn't cool, and people should stop doing it. (As has been done with a growing list of non-PC terms.) What is the public reaction gonna be? In contrast to the other "PC" campaigns, this one would be laughed at by most. The chances that a public school will ever list "jeez" as something kids could be punished for saying is pretty slim. That's my point. And that's probably why nobody is likely to suggest such a campaign regarding any "Christian" concern.

[Mrs Mungo]

Does that mean I should ignore the opinion of a Muslim that it is a horrendous act to draw (and publish) a cartoon of Mohammad, and do it anyway?

 

That you *should* or that you *can* without intending offense and there shouldn't be a price placed upon your head as a result? My answer to the latter is, yes. In fact, drawings of Mohammed are published all the time.

 

Not at all.

 

I'm saying that it used to be the custom, when visiting another region, to do as the inhabitants do, not as was done in the originating area. So, if in my country cannibalism was preferred, but in the one I'm visiting it is taboo, I am respectful and do not eat the host.

 

I'm afraid you're being too obtuse. I don't understand how this is relevant within the context of this discussion.

[TranquilMind]

 

 

However, I do feel the need to speak out when Christians are persecuted for believing what Christ taught when those who are doing the persecuting are OTHERS claiming to be Christians. This is something that is repeatedly warned against in the New Testament; others coming in teaching 'another gospel'. Teaching that really, Christ didn't mean those things. Really, it's ok to do whatever feels good, or whatever makes others more comfortabale, or whatever other heresy they're teaching. THOSE are the people true followers of Christ should be concerned about and call out.

 

Just my feelings on the subject.

 

Yes, this is a major problem. I'm tired of it too. Another gospel, exactly.

 

We are warned that a man's foes will be those of his own household in the end times.

[TranquilMind]

Yes. People are being fired from their jobs...among other things.

 

Professor fired for *explaining* Catholic position on homosexuality in a class ON Catholicism.

Fired from job...for personal beliefs/work done/espoused outside of job.

 

Student suspended for beliefs

 

These are not necessarily recent incidents, or even the best articles, but they do seem to be happening more frequently. I don't know if it's more frequent than discrimination against GLBT, or minorities, or women...or ________, but yes, it does happen.

Oh yes, it does.

[nmoira]

 

Well, my original point was that: let's say 15% of Americans don't like hearing "jeez" because they consider it disrespectful to Christianity.

What if I find the term "family values" offensive because I don't think what it has come to represent jives remotely with my values or my family's values? [FTR, I do find it offensive and don't mind saying so.] I have no expectation that you or anyone else should accomodate me. The risk of being occasionally worked up or upset by the words or actions of others is strongly correlated with the ability to draw breath (r=1). I accept this.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, my original point was that: let's say 15% of Americans don't like hearing "jeez" because they consider it disrespectful to Christianity. While they understand that many of the people saying "jeez" don't even intend to be "taking the Lord's name in vain," they are unhappy with the trend and would like to reverse it. So you start seeing commercials and PSAs and so on, pointing it out and saying it isn't cool, and people should stop doing it. (As has been done with a growing list of non-PC terms.) What is the public reaction gonna be? In contrast to the other "PC" campaigns, this one would be laughed at by most. The chances that a public school will ever list "jeez" as something kids could be punished for saying is pretty slim. That's my point. And that's probably why nobody is likely to suggest such a campaign regarding any "Christian" concern.

 

Because it is *not* a general Christian concern. Once again, due to a language shift over the course of 100 years or so, most *Christians* do NOT find it offensive. That is why you wouldn't get a good response *with that particular agenda.*

 

On the other hand, let me take a whole other example. One of my best friends is an agnostic (who leans pretty far toward atheist). She told me that she was thinking of getting one of those Darwin fish for the back of her car. I explained the religious significance of the Ichthys to her. She decided against parodying a religious symbol. I could name several examples like this. It is my experience when you genuinely share information with people, that they lean toward being respectful of religion, even when it comes to Christianity. When you walk around claiming every minced swear is wrong for people to say because they are all blasphemous, then they start to think you are an over-reactor and dismiss what you say.

[SKL]

I think it's always alright to speak up about something that bugs you, but is it reasonable to expect a change because 15% of the population wants it? I don't know about that.

 

Well, yes, that is why we care for the 2% of the population who are Jews, the 2% who are Muslims, the 10-15% who are African-Americans, the 10-15% who are Hispanics, the maybe 10% who are homosexual, the maybe 10% who have a close family member who is mentally handicapped, etc.

[HappyCrazyMama]

:iagree: This thread is really surprising me in regards what some people consider discrimination. FWIW, I am a what most would consider a very conservative Christian.

 

I don't get why OTHER people saying OMG is discrimating against me or anyone. If I don't think OMG or Jeez is appropriate, it is totally within my rights and abilities to not say that myself. If I don't believe homosexuality is acceptable to God, it is totally within my rights and abilities to not practice it myself.

 

As long as I am allowed those rights without reprecussion (as in no one is firing me or jailing me because I choose not to do those things myself) then I am not being discriminated against.

 

Other people don't have to approve of my choices or follow my choices themselves. The fact that they don't does not constitute discrimination.

 

ETA, rudeness is whole separate issue. People are rude about a whole host of items, including religion. Yes, I wish it would stop! But rudeness does not equal discrimination.

:iagree:

[NanceXToo]

When I was a teen and said "you're so gay" or even "I'm so gay" after my friend or I would do something dweeby (having absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality), I had no intention of insult either. But now if my kid says something like that in school, she will be punished. Same goes for "retarded" and other words. So why aren't the gays or parents of mentally delayed children said to be "looking for a reason to be insulted"?

 

I'm trying to raise kids who do not trample on other people's feelings - intentionally or unintentionally. I may not cover all the bases, but I am trying. As soon as I realize something might make someone else cringe, I try to remove it from our vocabulary permanently (or at least be very careful in what context I use it). I think it's reasonable to prefer that other adults do the same.

 

Just because people don't cry loudly every time they hear a word that bothers them does not mean they are neutral toward hearing the word.

 

Because you are saying gay=bad or retarded=stupid. Saying "geez" doesn't have anything to do with a person, *at all*.

 

Seriously. When people start saying things like "You're so christian!" to mean something like "you're an idiot," then you can compare the two. These are not remotely the same thing.

 

No, saying "jeez" is a violation of the 2nd commandment. Big deal to some people. Bigger than mildly insulting another human, to some people.

 

I think that's a matter of personal opinion. I think many people use gee, or geesh, or jeez, just as a quaint exclamation to avoid cursing and don't mean it in any religious way whatsoever and aren't thinking of God, Jesus, religion, or anything of the sort when they say it, assuming they even believe in those things, and certainly intend no offense to anyone.

 

But I have a question that I'm just curious about. Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're right and it IS a violation of the second commandment. Even if it is, why does it matter to you if someone ELSE breaks it, as long as YOU aren't the one breaking it? I mean, you certainly don't have to use any of those phrases if you feel they are wrong. But do you get personally offended if someone, say, "covets their neighbor's goods?" Works on the sabbath? As long as YOU are doing what you feel is right, isn't that all that really matters?

 

I mean, sure, I can see if they used these words or phrases in front of you in a really nasty or hateful or especially insulting way (I can understand you not wanting to hear curses interjected in the middle of Jesus' name or something), but I just don't see why somebody else saying gee or jeez should affect you any. Certainly, don't use it yourself if it makes you uncomfortable.

[AdventureMoms]

Well, my original point was that: let's say 15% of Americans don't like hearing "jeez" because they consider it disrespectful to Christianity. While they understand that many of the people saying "jeez" don't even intend to be "taking the Lord's name in vain," they are unhappy with the trend and would like to reverse it. So you start seeing commercials and PSAs and so on, pointing it out and saying it isn't cool, and people should stop doing it. (As has been done with a growing list of non-PC terms.) What is the public reaction gonna be? In contrast to the other "PC" campaigns, this one would be laughed at by most. The chances that a public school will ever list "jeez" as something kids could be punished for saying is pretty slim. That's my point. And that's probably why nobody is likely to suggest such a campaign regarding any "Christian" concern.

 

Do you think people don't laugh at the other "PC" campaigns? Really? Plenty of people think that "that's so gay" or "don't Jew me" or whatever else are completely acceptable and think it's absurd to stop using the expressions. Then there's the folks who pride themselves in being as un-PC as humanly possible - which seems to translate into insulting as many minorities per sentence as you can. That said, awareness campaigns have helped people to at least learn that these things are insulting, and some people choose to speak differently now. Others laugh and mock. Such is life.

 

Has anyone ever TRIED a campaign to increase awareness that some people find "gee" insulting? I honestly don't understand how it is insulting, but I do have a hard time with "well, it is terribly offensive, but if we try to do something about it, people might laugh". If something that the vast majority of the population is doing is offensive to you, and most of them have NO IDEA that it is offensive, but you aren't willing to tell them that it is offensive... I don't know it just baffles me, I guess.

[TranquilMind]

Part of the kerfuffle in Alberta at the moment w/the new education bill is that hs'ers have been told that teaching certain religious beliefs = discrimination, and therefore will not be allowed.

 

The specific example cited was that nobody, hs'ers included, are allowed to teach homosexuality is a sin.

 

To me, that *is* discrimination against ppl whose faith says otherwise. And, it's not just a Christian belief either. From what I understand, many religions are not ok w/homosexuality (I could be misunderstanding, I'm sure someone will correct me if I am)

 

My question that I posed to government officials is, what else am I not allowed to teach my children is a sin? Lying? Adultery? Stealing? Or is it just this one specific thing?

 

And since all sins are equal, I don't understand why one is being singled out as being 'hate' any more than anything else. On either side of the fence.

This is appalling. Do you have a link?

[QueenCat]

That's ridiculous. I know of precisely NO Christians who would do this. I'm sorry you know of people who claim the name but don't walk the walk.

 

I've corrected even this past week someone who divided "Christians and Catholics" in reference to politics. I stated that Catholics ARE Christians, and should not be separated out.

 

Unfortunately, we had an incident where we used to live, where the youth from a local Baptist church called some of the Catholic kids cannibals, based on what they studied in Sunday School. It was HORRIBLE.

[nmoira]

 

Well, yes, that is why we care for the 2% of the population who are Jews, the 2% who are Muslims, the 10-15% who are African-Americans, the 10-15% who are Hispanics, the maybe 10% who are homosexual, the maybe 10% who have a close family member who is mentally handicapped, etc.

I would argue that these groups (both groups and members) have a stronger case for hurt and offense than the argument that "geez" is unacceptable in general use. "Geez" is not used to marginalize or stereotype; nor is it meant (in the vast majority of cases) in a hurtful or derogatory way.

[Marylou]

Well, my original point was that: let's say 15% of Americans don't like hearing "jeez" because they consider it disrespectful to Christianity. While they understand that many of the people saying "jeez" don't even intend to be "taking the Lord's name in vain," they are unhappy with the trend and would like to reverse it. So you start seeing commercials and PSAs and so on, pointing it out and saying it isn't cool, and people should stop doing it. (As has been done with a growing list of non-PC terms.) What is the public reaction gonna be? In contrast to the other "PC" campaigns, this one would be laughed at by most. The chances that a public school will ever list "jeez" as something kids could be punished for saying is pretty slim. That's my point. And that's probably why nobody is likely to suggest such a campaign regarding any "Christian" concern.

 

I thought your original point was a good one, and I don't know of any PP who insisted, commanded or threatened anyone who uses religious euphemisms!

 

If I used the word "offensive" in my pp, I probably meant "bothered". Just b/c somthing bothers me doesn't mean I'm on a campaign to rid the world of it :glare:.

 

I also dislike hearing "h*ly c*w" all. the. time. But I don't make a stink of it. We don't say it in our family, and we don't watch videos/movies that use it. YMMV I hear "Live and let live" all the time, too. But I guess that's only if the things that bother you are on the PC list :glare:.

[SKL]

Because it is *not* a general Christian concern. Once again, due to a language shift over the course of 100 years or so, most *Christians* do NOT find it offensive. That is why you wouldn't get a good response *with that particular agenda.*

 

On the other hand, let me take a whole other example. One of my best friends is an agnostic (who leans pretty far toward atheist). She told me that she was thinking of getting one of those Darwin fish for the back of her car. I explained the religious significance of the Ichthys to her. She decided against parodying a religious symbol. I could name several examples like this. It is my experience when you genuinely share information with people, that they lean toward being respectful of religion, even when it comes to Christianity. When you walk around claiming every minced swear is wrong for people to say because they are all blasphemous, then they start to think you are an over-reactor and dismiss what you say.

 

What % of a group needs to feel uncomfortable before you think it would be nice of you to stop saying the word that makes them uncomfortable?

 

And how will you know that % is reached?

 

It sounds like if your friend were in this conversation, she would try to break the habit of saying "jeez" out of consideration.

[simka2]

What % of a group needs to feel uncomfortable before you think it would be nice of you to stop saying the word that makes them uncomfortable?

 

And how will you know that % is reached?

 

It sounds like if your friend were in this conversation, she would try to break the habit of saying "jeez" out of consideration.

 

I think there is a difference between 15% of Christians and the majority of a different group. Like someone else said, this is partially a problem of numbers. So, even though a small % of the general population finds something offensive, we do have to ask if it is offensive to the majority of a particular sub-group.

 

I am doing a poor job of explaining this. But if the majority of Native Americans find a particular phrase offensive, it is different than if 15% of Christians find a particular phrase offensive.

Edited March 10, 2012 by simka2

[AdventureMoms]

I would argue that these groups (both groups and members) have a stronger case for hurt and offense than the argument that "geez" is unacceptable in general use. "Geez" is not used to marginalize or stereotype; nor is it meant (in the vast majority of cases) in a hurtful or derogatory way.

 

While I do think that is true, I also am willing to take into consideration the feelings of those who are insulted by "geez". I may think it's silly, but if a group of people feels really strongly that it is offensive to them, I'm willing to at least consider it.

 

However, I'm kind of getting the impression that this is more of a "that's kind of annoying" thing than a "that's really offensive" thing. If it's really offensive, those who are offended would complain. If it only offends 2 or 3 people (which is what I'm seeing from this thread) then...yeah, that kind of lowers it on my radar.

[nmoira]

 

I also dislike hearing "h*ly c*w" all. the. time.

There was a huge thread about this. I'm don't recall how it eventually went down.

[TranquilMind]

"Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain" is kind of important to a lot of Christians.

 

Just because you consider "Geez" meaningless does not mean it's not insensitive to say it around people who consider it disrespectful. You get a pass if you never realized it before, but once you realize it, you make a choice to potentially offend if you say it. IMO.

 

I know if you try to find an alternative to "jeez," it's hard to, isn't it? They all seem to be different ways to "indirectly" break the 2nd(?) commandment. That kind of bothers me. Nobody here created this problem, of course, but it's something that gets to me sometimes.

Very, very interesting how cursewords frequently involve some invocation of Jesus or God, isn't it?

 

You never hear anyone say, "Mohammed D&%m it!" or "Effing Vishnu!" etc etc.

[SKL]

But I have a question that I'm just curious about. Let's just say for the sake of argument that you're right and it IS a violation of the second commandment. Even if it is, why does it matter to you if someone ELSE breaks it, as long as YOU aren't the one breaking it? I mean, you certainly don't have to use any of those phrases if you feel they are wrong. But do you get personally offended if someone, say, "covets their neighbor's goods?" Works on the sabbath? As long as YOU are doing what you feel is right, isn't that all that really matters?

 

I know for a fact that some very nice, inoffensive people who mind their own business are hurt by hearing this. I can totally understand why people who don't realize this would say it. But I cannot understand why people, after learning that this makes many people uncomfortable, are being so adamant that they are going to keep saying it. To each her own, of course, but I don't understand it.

[Mrs Mungo]

What % of a group needs to feel uncomfortable before you think it would be nice of you to stop saying the word that makes them uncomfortable?

 

And how will you know that % is reached?

 

You are not hearing me. My extremely religious maternal grandmother who believed loads of things would send you straight to hell used minced swears like, "oh my lands." It's extraordinarily common throughout history to use minced swears. I do not find it offensive. I don't care if everyone else in the whole world decided all minced swears were offensive, I would still think it was a ridiculous idea.

 

It sounds like if your friend were in this conversation, she would try to break the habit of saying "jeez" out of consideration.

 

LOL, shows what you know.

[TranquilMind]

Pardon my ignorance, but in what part of the Bible did Jesus declare his opinion about homosexuals? Link? Cite? Source?

That was well established in the Levitical law, as you know. Jesus didn't waste time discussing it. Paul did, though, later.

[Mrs Mungo]

Very, very interesting how cursewords frequently involve some invocation of Jesus or God, isn't it?

 

You never hear anyone say, "Mohammed D&%m it!" or "Effing Vishnu!" etc etc.

 

Maybe because Christianity has been the dominant religion of Western society for the better part of a thousand years?

[AdventureMoms]

Very, very interesting how cursewords frequently involve some invocation of Jesus or God, isn't it?

 

You never hear anyone say, "Mohammed D&%m it!" or "Effing Vishnu!" etc etc.

 

If we lived in a society where free speech was valued and those gods were the majority gods, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

It makes sense that curse words (which convey strong feeling) often invoke a deity. In our culture, that deity is bound to be Jesus or God most of the time, because our culture is heavily Christian. In a way, what we're seeing here is members of the majority religion being offended because their religion is the majority.

[bethben]

I live in a liberal (2 college) small town. Someone on the town forum joked that the only people who are discriminated against having any valid point are Christians and people who want "big box" stores coming to town (which in our town meant Target/Cub foods fighting a lawsuit trying to get them to stay away). Everyone else this person claims, had a right to their viewpoint and would not be viciously insulted. This person happened to be on the liberal side of things too so it was not a defensive position. Every other viewpoint has a voice. If you're Christian around here and in public forums, you will get a large verbal spank for voicing your viewpoints.

 

Beth

[TranquilMind]

Apparently I'm the only person here whose parents pointed out to me that "gee," "jeez," and various other exclamations are just watered-down versions of "Jesus" and "God."

 

ETA: minced oaths, I guess they are called.

You aren't the only one. This is well known on my planet. ;)

[SKL]

I do have a hard time with "well, it is terribly offensive, but if we try to do something about it, people might laugh". If something that the vast majority of the population is doing is offensive to you, and most of them have NO IDEA that it is offensive, but you aren't willing to tell them that it is offensive... I don't know it just baffles me, I guess.

 

But you just saw that happen here.

 

I'm not an activist. I wasn't behind any of the PC campaigns, and don't intend to start any. I was just pointing out something that someone else said better, that it is more culturally acceptable to mock Christianity than almost anything else in the USA.

[AdventureMoms]

That was well established in the Levitical law, as you know. Jesus didn't waste time discussing it. Paul did, though, later.

 

Funny how it is now the ONE BIG ISSUE that so many feel the need to obsess about, when Jesus apparently didn't even feel it was worth a mention.

[TranquilMind]

Until this thread, I seriously thought it was a letter of the alphabet. Or a movie rating.

Wow. At times like this I really do realize I grew up in a different era from most of you, where things like this were common knowledge.

 

Letter of the alphabet? ;)

[nmoira]

Very, very interesting how cursewords frequently involve some invocation of Jesus or God, isn't it?

 

You never hear anyone say, "Mohammed D&%m it!" or "Effing Vishnu!" etc etc.

I would guess this is because in a predominantly Christian culture these would not have had the same shock value and so it never occurred to anyone to say them. They also don't roll off the tongue quite the way the more popular alternatives do.

 

Is anyone familiar with the history and use of profanity outside the Christian west?

[TranquilMind]

Nope, mine did too.

 

We don't say 'geez/jeez here either. Or gosh. Or OMG.

 

But it's not the end of the world if my kids hear gosh or something. That's unavoidable. As is hearing people exclaim "OMG" . Which IS worse, IMO, and which I do believe is blasphemy.

I'm SO over "OMG". Ugh.

[TranquilMind]

How about "Hello"? What is the origin of that word? It has "hell" in it. I'm dead serious here, I had no idea "gee" was bad and now I'm wondering what other entirely meaningless-to-me syllables have been offending people.

LOL. Seriously...out loud.

 

Better say, "Hi!" then. Oh wait...that could be a drug reference...

[TranquilMind]

Like I said... Socially acceptable. :glare:

 

FTR, I never knew anyone was offended by geez either, but I don't think you should be mocked because it offends you or because you teach your kids not to say it.

Exactly, perfect case in point right here.

 

No, mocking others because they don't say "geez" and point out the origin is ridiculous. But here it is.

[AdventureMoms]

But you just saw that happen here.

 

I'm not an activist. I wasn't behind any of the PC campaigns, and don't intend to start any. I was just pointing out something that someone else said better, that it is more culturally acceptable to mock Christianity than almost anything else in the USA.

\

I do actually agree that it is more culturally acceptable to mock Christianity than many other things in the USA. I think that in part, this is a side effect of being in the majority, and the group that had held power for a very, very long time. It is also more acceptable to mock white people or Europeans.

 

Usually people mock groups that are powerful, or that they are a member of, or a former member of, or otherwise very close to. Nearly the entire US is a Christian or an ex-Christian, or had a parent who is a Christian, or is married to a Christian. Christians hold an enormous amount of political, financial, and social clout in the USA. You cannot hold that kind of power and never be mocked.

 

I'm not saying that it is ok, or a good thing, but it isn't exactly a sign of discrimination.

[TranquilMind]

Funny how it is now the ONE BIG ISSUE that so many feel the need to obsess about, when Jesus apparently didn't even feel it was worth a mention.

He only had 3 years and a lot to do! When something is extremely well-established, you don't need to talk about it a lot directly. The assumptions are quite clear that we understood this: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." (Matthew 19:5)

 

And: Jesus says of divorce and remarriage, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18)

 

Pretty obvious, especially given the fact that he was talking to the JEWS who completely understood the Levitical law on this subject, which was called an abomination.

 

So, to argue, "Well, Jesus didn't mention it, so it must be fine for Christians and everyone else" is like arguing that Jesus didn't mention anything about having slaves pick your cotton, so that must be fine too.

[Mrs Mungo]

In the medieval era it was common to swear on the body parts of God in order to avoid breaking the third commandment. There were also laws put into place against swearing, people could be fined.

 

A selection of Shakespearean minced oaths (not at all comprehensive):

God's body

God's bodkins, man!

By God's mother

By God's blest mother

'zounds

'sblood

'fore God

By'r Lady

O heaven

'Ud's pity

 

So, if society hasn't settled this in the last 400 years, I don't think we're going to settle it here.

[Impish]

This is appalling. Do you have a link?

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-homeschooling-families-cant-teach-homosexuality-a-sin-in-class-sa

 

The quote I originally read, McColl specifically stated that schools (which include hs'ers in their def'n) couldn't teach homosexuality is a sin

[Jen500]

If you take the bible literally, where does it say you can't say Geez?

[Joanne]

He only had 3 years and a lot to do! When something is extremely well-established, you don't need to talk about it a lot directly. The assumptions are quite clear that we understood this: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." (Matthew 19:5)

 

And: Jesus says of divorce and remarriage, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18)

 

Pretty obvious, especially given the fact that he was talking to the JEWS who completely understood the Levitical law on this subject, which was called an abomination.

 

So, to argue, "Well, Jesus didn't mention it, so it must be fine for Christians and everyone else" is like arguing that Jesus didn't mention anything about having slaves pick your cotton, so that must be fine too.

 

Nope. The fact that god made man, woman, and biology doesn't exclude other orientaions. That is a leap not supported by scripture, but by an approach to scritpure.

 

And Jews have a different culture, tone, and understanding of homosexuality.

 

Your logic doesn't work for this.

[TranquilMind]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-homeschooling-families-cant-teach-homosexuality-a-sin-in-class-sa

 

The quote I originally read, McColl specifically stated that schools (which include hs'ers in their def'n) couldn't teach homosexuality is a sin

How KIND of Alberta to permit parents to still impart their religious beliefs so long as it is not part of "instruction".

 

"According to McColl, Christian homeschooling families can continue to impart Biblical teachings on homosexuality in their homes, “as long as it’s not part of their academic program of studies and instructional materials.”

 

Whatever. I see lawsuits on the Horizon. How would they ever separate that out? And how do they DARE get into the family's business.

[TranquilMind]

Nope. The fact that god made man, woman, and biology doesn't exclude other orientaions. That is a leap not supported by scripture, but by an approach to scritpure.

 

 

Your logic doesn't work for this.

 

It is your logic that is specious here. You simply make a statement based on nothing whatsoever except your own belief. Somehow other orientations are fine biblically based on.....?

 

The family structure was and is quite clear. Jesus didn't misspeak when he said man and wife.

[AdventureMoms]

LOL. Seriously...out loud.

 

Better say, "Hi!" then. Oh wait...that could be a drug reference...

 

Well, "Hi" is a shortened version of "hello", much like "gee" is apparently a shortened version of "Jesus". So I'm thinking that's not ok.

[TranquilMind]

I'm just going to start greeting everyone with "Dude".

 

That'll work.

 

Though it sounds odd to older people as "dudes" are (were?) men. But I hear teen girls addressing each other this way.

 

And how did we ever get "hi" from "hello"?

[Joanne]

It is your logic that is specious here. You simply make a statement based on nothing whatsoever except your own belief. Somehow other orientations are fine biblically based on.....?

 

The family structure was and is quite clear. Jesus didn't misspeak when he said man and wife.

 

He ~ Jesus ~ spoke of man and woman. He did not exclude other partnerings. He never said anything about homosexuality. THAT is telling and not because "}ews would have known".

[Ester Maria]

In my experience, for the VAST majority of people, when using what have become common interjections and fillers in common day to day language, it is not a "calculated" use specifically thought out and framed to offend. They do not overthink what they are saying.

Yes, it is nice to refrain oneself from using some of those expressions, simply because they are often "cheap" (for lack of a better expression). But one still does not specifically intend to offend even if they do use them.

 

For people who are not religious, Gosh / Jeez / OMG and alike do not have a religious value. For people who are not religious, God is a signifier without a signified, an empty word and concept. They do not mean profanity when using those expressions. People for whom those words mean something, and who do consider it a blasphemy to use them in certain contexts, are free to refrain from abusing the words themselves. What they are not free, however, is to prescribe to others how they "ought" to speak - because that is the point at which their personal freedoms clash with other persons' personal freedoms. I fully support each person's right to refuse to be spoken to in such a fashion, if they find it objectionable, but I do not support any "right" of theirs that they may impose arbitrary restrictions on other people's speech in general.

 

If you have problems with somebody else's expression, perhaps it is the problem on your side of the fence, not theirs. You may refuse to communicate with them or you may ask them to mind their language around you as a prerequisite to communicate with you, but a directive aimed at them to stop using such expressions in general is, IMNSHO, completely out of line.

 

What I fully support is establishing your own red lines past which you are not willing to go or communicate.

What I will never support are calls for unnecessary levels of self-censorship and PCese lest we somehow offend.

[HappyCrazyMama]

How about "Hello"? What is the origin of that word? It has "hell" in it. I'm dead serious here, I had no idea "gee" was bad and now I'm wondering what other entirely meaningless-to-me syllables have been offending people.

There is no commandment against saying the word hell.;) We Christians might not like the word but we were never told not to speak it.:)

Other people using euphemisms doesn't typically offend me, perhaps if combined with a swear word. Personally I try to avoid them but it is so ingrained its hard. I don't like OM- and would rather hear someone cuss. The Lord's name combined with swear words is the worst of course. I don't think any of this is discrimination.:)

[Marylou]

In the medieval era it was common to swear on the body parts of God in order to avoid breaking the third commandment. There were also laws put into place against swearing, people could be fined.

 

A selection of Shakespearean minced oaths (not at all comprehensive):

God's body

God's bodkins, man!

By God's mother

By God's blest mother

'zounds

'sblood

'fore God

By'r Lady

O heaven

'Ud's pity

 

So, if society hasn't settled this in the last 400 years, I don't think we're going to settle it here.

 

No one was trying to settle anything.

 

Being ignorant of something is excusable. What you (general) do with new knowledge shows your true character.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't think Christians are discriminated against. I think they are no longer the de facto religion and it is no longer instantaneous social and professional suicide to not be Christian. It isn't discrimination to take religious displays out of government buildings. The Christians I know who claim persecution say that they are no longer free to talk about their religion, but really their idea of talking about it is trying to get a conversion or trying to legislate their religion regardless of the Constitution's position on the matter. I don't think they understand exactly what discrimination or persecution is, to be honest. Being on a level playing field with the other religions does not mean you are disenfranchised.

 

I agree.

 

In my area I feel that Christianity is discriminatory to the extent of legislating religion and committing to law things that I feel are wrong. I do not think Jesus would be ok with killing women in case she might end a pregnancy to save her life.

 

States are passing laws giving Drs free passes to lie to women, even if her life is in danger. To me that is evil. Our health care should be better, not worse. I no longer feel this state is a safe place to raise a daughter.

[AdventureMoms]

He only had 3 years and a lot to do! When something is extremely well-established, you don't need to talk about it a lot directly. The assumptions are quite clear that we understood this: "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." (Matthew 19:5)

 

And: Jesus says of divorce and remarriage, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery." (Luke 16:18)

 

Pretty obvious, especially given the fact that he was talking to the JEWS who completely understood the Levitical law on this subject, which was called an abomination.

 

So, to argue, "Well, Jesus didn't mention it, so it must be fine for Christians and everyone else" is like arguing that Jesus didn't mention anything about having slaves pick your cotton, so that must be fine too.

 

I see that quote as having to do with divorce. Remarriage is bad, ok... What does that have to do with homosexuality, again?

 

As to Levitical law, I do find it interesting how different the Jewish stance is on this.