Disturbing Christian material . . . . . . . .

[Ben Kenobi]

And there's the problem. The need felt to proclaim this 'truth' to others outside of the community and, or to use the coercion of brimestone on children to indoctrinate them.

So it is a problem that Christians proclaim their Gospel to other people? I don't see why this would be a problem in a nation that supposedly believes in religious freedom, provided other religions were accorded the same opportunity.

Ideas in themselves cannot be banned, unless you want to start down the road to censorship.

As for the indoctrination of children, public schools have their own indoctrination. The question isn't whether children will be indoctrinated, but as to what values the children will be inculated. If Christian parents wish to give their children an education that does not conflict with their religion then I see nothing wrong with this.

What is bad is having a community where people are so convinced of their 'truth' that they will murder other people because of it.

Agreed. Which is why I think one needs to make a distinction between fundamentalist Christians who at their worst make a nuisance of themselves and are annoying with the fundamentalist muslims who see nothing wrong with blowing up parliament buildings or flying planes into buildings.

It's also bad to create environments for indoctrination of children who do not believe to turn them to a brand of fundamentalism. This happens in some Christian schools, AFAIK and from the first post in this thread.

Why is it bad to teach children Christian fundamentalism when such fundamentalism is in no way harmful to society in general? Wouldn't it be helpful to teach this to children if they follow their beliefs as Christians to do good to their enemies, to love them, bless them and care for them?

Christians do not need to express damnation for others in order to be Christians. I've known a number of ministers who if pressed would maintain they do not have a clue what will happen to the great mass of non-Christians. I've even heard a few say that being a Christian is not prerequisite for 'salvation.'

Well this has been a question for the Catholic church also. Their position comes from Romans, which I did quote by saying that those without knowledge of the Law of God follow the law in their heart and will be judged accordingly.

OTOH, there are some schools of thought where the 'truth' is more agressive about the lives, fates, and activities of others. These sects are definitely not contributing to a peaceful society.

True, but I don't see why fundamentalist Christians in general fall in this category. They never advocate that harm should be done to unbelievers, rather they ought to be permitted to disagree. Not only that Christians are called to love them and do good things for them!

What it boils down to, for me, is that there are aspects of certain beliefs that I believe to be hostile to those who do not share the faith. Living in a world, a country, a city, a building... with so many different people, the less cause of friction the better. Simply because no one, or not many, are actively harming others in the name of Christ currently does not mean that harmful aspects of Christian belief and practice, whether potential or actual, should be passed over for comment when they come up.

So you feel that someone being open about their faith would contribute to this friction? Don't you see how this makes an atmosphere of hostility to the believer who has to repress something that is an important part of his life in order to get along with everyone else?

Frankly I think that the community would be very happy with a sincere practicing Christian, mostly because they would be more then happy to help everyone else out regardless of where their beliefs lay. If you have to put up with the occasional sermon or prayer, well I think that's a small price to pay.

I don't see why one would have to fear for one's safety even if there is friction, friction is a two way street.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So it is a problem that Christians proclaim their Gospel to other people? I don't see why this would be a problem in a nation that supposedly believes in religious freedom, provided other religions were accorded the same opportunity.

Ideas in themselves cannot be banned, unless you want to start down the road to censorship.

Who said anything about censorship?

I'm trying to point out that some of the ideas and practices of some Christians, not all of them, contribute to strife and it would be better if more Christians realised that some of their 'truth' is best kept personal or within the community.

As for the indoctrination of children, public schools have their own indoctrination. The question isn't whether children will be indoctrinated, but as to what values the children will be inculated. If Christian parents wish to give their children an education that does not conflict with their religion then I see nothing wrong with this.

Should our regulators allow schools where people are taught that is is OK to beat your wife with a stick so long as it is no thicker than your thumb?

Multiple wives?

You're sure to go to heaven if you blow yourself up in jihad?

Can some aspects of religion be harmful if allowed in schools?

Agreed. Which is why I think one needs to make a distinction between fundamentalist Christians who at their worst make a nuisance of themselves and are annoying with the fundamentalist muslims who see nothing wrong with blowing up parliament buildings or flying planes into buildings.

Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christians are not at their worst with what they say. Killing doctors is slightly worse than a nuisaance. Why do they do it? Is it because they are convinced of the 'truth' of their belief to such an extent that they are willing to take extreme action based on it?

In short, there is a problem in a world of many faiths when some of the faithful consider their 'truth' to be so important that it must be foisted on others, and Christians are not immune from the disease.

Why is it bad to teach children Christian fundamentalism when such fundamentalism is in no way harmful to society in general? Wouldn't it be helpful to teach this to children if they follow their beliefs as Christians to do good to their enemies, to love them, bless them and care for them?

... and tell people they are going to burn in hell for being fags?

Well this has been a question for the Catholic church also. Their position comes from Romans, which I did quote by saying that those without knowledge of the Law of God follow the law in their heart and will be judged accordingly.

These ministers would say that you can be aware of the Law of God, not be a Christian, and be 'saved'.

They aren't excluding people based on a dogma and putting up barriers. They are reaching out to others and building bridges. I have a lot of respect for that.

True, but I don't see why fundamentalist Christians in general fall in this category. They never advocate that harm should be done to unbelievers, rather they ought to be permitted to disagree. Not only that Christians are called to love them and do good things for them!

They don't fall into any category simply for being fundamentalist. They can do harm through their actions and practices though, even if they may love and give charity or good deeds at other times.

Threatening children with damnation could certainly be seen as harmful by many. I'm pointing that out.

So you feel that someone being open about their faith would contribute to this friction? Don't you see how this makes an atmosphere of hostility to the believer who has to repress something that is an important part of his life in order to get along with everyone else?

Frankly I think that the community would be very happy with a sincere practicing Christian, mostly because they would be more then happy to help everyone else out regardless of where their beliefs lay. If you have to put up with the occasional sermon or prayer, well I think that's a small price to pay.

I don't see why one would have to fear for one's safety even if there is friction, friction is a two way street.

We ask muslims and others who live among us to give up aspects of their faith that are hostile or harmful to themselves and or others not of their faith. Why should Christians be exempt from criticism for harmful aspects of their beliefs or practices?

[Robert]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You know, I have a lot of tolerance, but I can't help but be a bit put off by people running around saying that people who don't believe as they do are going to burn in hell-fire.

Maybe it's just me, but don't you think such expressions do less than contribute to a civil society?

Imagine that you're driving a car. You're driving at a very heigh speed towards a corner. I believe that round the corner there's a big brick wall and if you'll continue to do what you're doing you'll be death within 15 seconds.

Am I a stupid fundamentalist now because I believe that you're going to die because I believe there's a brick wall around the corner? Do I lack tolerance? No, I just express what I believe. I even express it to save you from the brick wall. I hope you won't hit the wall. Maybe I'm wrong and insane and there is no brick wall. Maybe I'm a fool, but I'm not intolerant.

I would be intolerant if I would be like: "I believe there's a brick wall but I'm not going to tell him, he should die the bastard". Or if I would be like: "I hope you'll hit the wall hard you idiot."

That's just what most christians believe, that those who don't believe in Jesus and will follow their own will will end up in hell. Not because I want them to. Not because that pleases me. But just because I believe that's what'll be the direction mankind is heading towards. I hate that. I wish you and everybody else will never end up in hell. I hope muslims and atheists and hindus and agnosts and aliens and whatever that may live will live for eternity on the new earth. I wish you the very best. But I'm afraid and I do believe that that's not where you're heading towards if you do not follow Jesus. And that's why I'm telling you that. Not to pester you or to let you follow me or whatever insane reason people may have for telling other people stories. I tell it because I hope you'll never hit the brick wall.

That's why.
And you are the person who's opening his window while speeding on the heighway and who yells at the people who try to warn them.

[Robert]

Originally posted by notyoueither


The problem, Ben, is when people think their belief is THE TRUTH.

Everybody thinks that what they believe is the truth.
Even agnosts think that what they think is the truth. They think: "It's best to do not think at all and be open to everything". I've seen atheists and evolutionists here on Apolyton who thought that what they believed was the truth as well. Why can christians not believe that what the Bible tells them is the truth? As long as they won't start to harm people and force them to follow the same truth. But we can still talk about it, can't we?

It pisses people off when fundies of any stripe begin holding forth on heaven, hell, and the merits of 42 virgins.

There are a lot of things that piss me off. Sometimes I piss off myself. But in the end we all piss of each other and think that we are telling the truth. Why can people defend the opinion that it's ok to end the life of a baby in the womb but do people who believe that there's a heaven and a hell piss you off?
Don't be pissed of that easily dude. In fact you can only be pissed of because you believe that they can't be sure about what they're saying, which makes you yourself believing that your opinion on that is true, which goes against your own reasoning.

Thing is, Ben, your standard and your belief piss a lot of people off.

Sort of like a bunch of people are pissed off about schools where men are taught that many virgins await them if they do certain things, and preach that women should be treated in a certain way.

Do you not know the difference between the teachings in which other people are harmed (ie. the virgins will be waiting for your when you murder as much as possible people) and in which people are not harmed?

There is a problem with beliefs that have negative effects on others. Xtian fundies are not outside the set of people who can do harm with their dogma.

And how are the liberal fundies not responsible for the mess that's todays society? Of course that's all debatable,is our current society a mess? Are the liberals responsible for that? Perhaps yes, perhaps not. It's as much debatable as the question if christian fundies are responsible for any harm that's been done to anyone.

Christians do harm to people, so do non christians. Atheists, muslims, agnosts, christians, we all do harm other people. Why does the christian harming piss you more off then other harming?

Preaching hell-fire for the unbelievers is at best annoying, and at worst harmful. Why continue to do it?

Why is it annoying? Muslims tell me that I'm going to the muslim hell. It doesn't annoy me, I just don't believe it and ignore it.

How is it harmfull at worst? How does such an opinion harm anybody?

Fundies can annoy, and worse, no matter what deity they worship, or what colour robes they deem fit to worship said deity.

Can't you see that you may annoy these fundies as well? That you and the fundies are just totally opposed to each other and can't understand each other? And that it's more the combination of and them that brings annoyance then just the fact that they're fundies?

You maybe a fundie in your own opinion.
Opposing opinions may annoy each other. Why do you only blame them for that? Because you're sure that you're opinion is the truth, concluding that theirs is wrong and annoying?

I care to the extent that the dogma is attempted to be enforced on others through threat or deed.

I hear 'You only live once, live it to the max" a dozen times per month. That's a dogma that is enforced to many people in our society. I believe it's a wrong dogma and it let's people do stupid things. Why is my dogma worse then such a dogma?

---

Each generation rebels against its parents . This is usually a healthy thing - by the time they reach their parents' age , they have retained the better parts of what their parents taught them , but rejected the relatively worse ones . This school made it very difficult to rebel - how do you rebel against something which embraces all beliefs ? The only two options were to either cut links with religion altogether , or to become more orthodox that these people would like .

Do you know what a problem is of the current generation? Their parents are the rebels of the sixties. The current youngsters have a problem rebelling towards their parents since their parents like their rebellion.

Freedom can be a dogma as well. If you're raised by the "You can do and believe whatever you want, it's all good if you like it" mantra then you're still indoctrinated with a single explanation of life. It sounds like a very good and open 'religion' but in the end it's as closed as any other since you've been learned that not being open and not believing that everything is good is not good.

Learning that everybody is right except those who don't believe that everybody is right is still believing that only your own tollerant believe is the truth.

and that's why these intolerants piss you off. Because intollerance goes against your tollerant view.

Personally I find religion a scary concept with no rational basis, and I find it shocking when this level of indoctrination is allowed to occur. The people trying to force this crap down the necks of the vulnerable should seriously be taken to task.

And atheists are not doing that?
Your way of life is also a religion. The modern man worships the gods 'me', 'money' and 'sex'. It fills out it's life according to these gods. This way of life is not more or less a religion then any of the other religions. Bhuddism is an atheistic religion at it's core as well. So is modern satanism.

What scares me is that atheists or agnosts think that the only good way to raise children is by raising them according to their own values and opinions.

All children should be ensured an education free from indoctrination...

Except the indocrination of your believe sysem since that's the only right indoctrination, right?
Giving no indoctrination is an indoctrination as well btw.

If you give a child no moral values you give them one moral value: there are no moral values.
So is it with religion and the question of the sence of life. If you don't tell them anything you just tell them there is no sence of life, which is an atheistic or agnostic indocrination.

Jon Miller:
*to my knowledge Jehova's Wintnesses are Arians (Spelling?), ie, they don't believe that Christ was divine (which, based upon what is traditionally called Christianity, makes them no more Christian than Muslims).

Jon, Jehova Witnesses believe that Jesus is divine, they believe that Jesus is the 2nd highest divine being. They don't believe that Jesus is The God of Hosts himself. They believe that Jesus was the first creation of God and that everything else has been created through Jesus. (in the beginning there was the word, and the word was with God and the word was divine (goddish). Everything has been created through the word.)

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Aneeshm, in answer to your claim that devout Hindus aren't respected in India you should realise that there are many Christians in the USA who claim that their religion is not respected and that they are discriminated against. I think that we all know that there are Muslims in certain traditional Islamic nations who make the same sort of claim, i.e., that the goverment has been taken over by people hostile to Islam. That doesn't mean that their perception is true.

I'm not saying that we're discriminated against ( that is definitely not the case ) , I'm just saying that being a devout Hindu in public has a stigma attached to it , due to the political climate and the intellectual atmosphere .

Also , the government is indifferent to Hindu interests for the reason that Hindus are not organised into voting blocs along religious lines . The government of UP , for example , actively tries to woo Muslims by letting Muslim criminals go scot free . A Muslim minister in the cabinet of the UP government made a statement that anyone who brought him the heads of the Danish cartoonists would get 51 crore rupees as a reward , but no action was taken against him . The government of Bihar used a lookalike of Osama Bin Laden on their election campaign to show that they care for Muslim interests ( scary as that is ) . This happens because Muslims vote as a community - 90+ % don't use their brain , they vote for whoever their religious/political leader tells them to vote for . The remaining liberal 10 % don't count compared to the 90 % . When Bush came to visit India , Muslims and communists rioted on the streets , but no action was taken against either .

On the other hand , a similar fiery Hindu political leader , Dr. Praveen Togadia , was arrested repeatedly on flimsy grounds and has been let off repeatedly because he never actually did any of the things he was accused of .

Or take the example of the RSS . The RSS has repeatedly been banned by the government , but the Supreme Court has repeatedly revoked the bans , because the RSS never did what it was accused of doing . Whenever something happens , fingers are pointed at the RSS . The RSS was unfairly blamed for the murder of Gandhiji , and banned . Later , all investigations and inquiries completely exonerated the RSS of any complicity whatsoever . It was them very reluctantly unbanned .

Or another example . There is a secular fundamentalist organisation ( they're actively anti-Hindutva and proclaim to the skies that they're secular fundamentalist ) working in Maharashtra , the Sambhaji Brigade , who hold Shivaji as their ideal . A foreign scholar used the resources ( probably the library ) of the Bhandarkar Oriental Reserach Institute to write a book which was derogatory towards Shivaji . These same secular fundies went and vandalised this institute for allowing this foreigner to use its resources . The media tried to protray this organisation as similar to the Shiv Sena ( which is a Hindu organisation ) and tried to imply that they were linked with Hindu organisations , or were a Hindu organisation themselves , which is not the case . Even I came to learn that the Sambhaji Brigade was anti-Hindutva only after I read up on it .

There are a myriad of other examples I can give you .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

Can you honestly tell me that there are no conservative fundamentalist schools, schools where students are taught that Hinduism is the true path to spiritual salvation to the exclusion of others in India?

There may be , but I can say with all honesty that I do not know of even one . I told you - it wouldn't be tolerated by the media or the government .

And you still don't get it . Maybe I'm not explaining it properly . Even if a Hindu fundie school existed , the furthest it could go was that out of all paths , Hinduism was the best . It could not deny any other path to salvation because Hinduism itself has many ways to achieve enlightenment . It is possible , however , that they argue against some other paths on the basis that they are not consistent , or on philosophical grounds .

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

If you say yes, then I'm going to have to remind you of a certain sect famous for sending saffron clad missionaries into airports around the world.

The Hare Krishnas ? They're an exception , but they're the most visible because they have taken up missionary work . I've read some of their stuff . They've picked up their theology straight from Christain monitheistic ideas . They're very intolerant - they believe in Christian ideas of heaven and hell . Hindus aren't supposed to be missionaries , as least not in the conventional sense of the term . Any missionary activity , in my opinion , should be restricted to the historically Hindu territories . I've come to the realisation that missionary activity is a sign of deep insecurity , which these people exhibit . They do not practice the form of Hinduism which is common in India , they tailor Hinduism to suit Western audiences who are more comfrotable with semi-Christian ideas . Personally , I disagree with them .

But anyway - I didn't say yes .

[Ben Kenobi]

Who said anything about censorship?

I'm trying to point out that some of the ideas and practices of some Christians, not all of them, contribute to strife and it would be better if more Christians realised that some of their 'truth' is best kept personal or within the community.

So a Christian who chooses to kneel and pray would be offensive if he chooses to do so in public? My question is so far the only thing you have found offensive with Christians is that they believe those who reject Christ will go to hell, even if they themselves do not know who is which.

Should our regulators allow schools where people are taught that is is OK to beat your wife with a stick so long as it is no thicker than your thumb?

Multiple wives?

You're sure to go to heaven if you blow yourself up in jihad?

Can some aspects of religion be harmful if allowed in schools?

I believe the question was the harms posed by Christianity. So what you are really saying here is that not all religions are the same and not all religions should bbe treated equally.

Unfortunately, fundamentalist Christians are not at their worst with what they say. Killing doctors is slightly worse than a nuisaance. Why do they do it? Is it because they are convinced of the 'truth' of their belief to such an extent that they are willing to take extreme action based on it?

I believe the last doctor shot was more then 10 years ago. Let alone the fact that the evangelical churches were very outspoken in condemning the shooting. You take one person who acts against the teachings of his own faith and use him to represent Christianity in general?

In short, there is a problem in a world of many faiths when some of the faithful consider their 'truth' to be so important that it must be foisted on others, and Christians are not immune from the disease.

Nope, but you must admit that if you have one religion that promises you 72 virgins for killing people and another religion that blesses people for loving their enemies, I think I am going to be more comfortable with the second religion then I am with the first.

... and tell people they are going to burn in hell for being fags?

Or for fornication, greed, pride, etc. All have fallen short.

These ministers would say that you can be aware of the Law of God, not be a Christian, and be 'saved'.

Uh, that depends. There is such thing as a baptism of desire and by blood by which one person before they enter the church may be considered a part of the church simply due to his desire to enter the church.

They aren't excluding people based on a dogma and putting up barriers. They are reaching out to others and building bridges. I have a lot of respect for that.

Sure it's easy to build bridges when you don't actually believe in anything, or believe in absolute truth.

I agree that folks ought to be welcome to the church regardless of their beliefs, but in order to become a member should require the candidate to profess the teachings of the church.

Threatening children with damnation could certainly be seen as harmful by many. I'm pointing that out.

I like cybershy's analogy of the brick wall. If you sincerely believe in hell, then warning someone is not intending to cause harm.

We ask muslims and others who live among us to give up aspects of their faith that are hostile or harmful to themselves and or others not of their faith. Why should Christians be exempt from criticism for harmful aspects of their beliefs or practices?

Because so far the only harm that has been enumerated is 'friction' from a Christian attempting to share his faith. That to me is on a whole different level the then muslim who believes that unbelievers should be killed.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

So a Christian who chooses to kneel and pray would be offensive if he chooses to do so in public?

Where did I say that?

My question is so far the only thing you have found offensive with Christians is that they believe those who reject Christ will go to hell, even if they themselves do not know who is which.

No, it's not. I also find people who kill doctors to be harmful (beyond offensive). I find Phelps offesnsive. There are others who go beyond offensive.

Feeding children threats of damnation to get them to fall into line I find both harmful and offensive.

I believe the question was the harms posed by Christianity. So what you are really saying here is that not all religions are the same and not all religions should bbe treated equally.

No, that is not at all what I am saying.

I am saying that harmful expressions and practices should be restricted by the state in schools, and in some cases beyond schools.

I believe the last doctor shot was more then 10 years ago. Let alone the fact that the evangelical churches were very outspoken in condemning the shooting. You take one person who acts against the teachings of his own faith and use him to represent Christianity in general?

You tried to ignore harm in the name of Christ by fundies. I showed one example where you were ignoring serious harm.

BTW, are people still berating women seeking abortions on their way to the clinics? There is further harm.

Nope, but you must admit that if you have one religion that promises you 72 virgins for killing people and another religion that blesses people for loving their enemies, I think I am going to be more comfortable with the second religion then I am with the first.

I'm sorry, Ben, but I am failing to grant a large difference between the imam promising 72 virgins and the priest forcing brimestone down the throats of youngsters to gain their 'belief.'

What happens afterwards may be different, but the twisting of young minds by adults who should be ashamed of themselves is not much different in immediate effect. That being the effect on young minds that should not be subjected to such abuse in the pursuit of an education.

Or for fornication, greed, pride, etc. All have fallen short.

Of course. Obey or burn! That seems to be the message every bit as much as love and charity.

Uh, that depends. There is such thing as a baptism of desire and by blood by which one person before they enter the church may be considered a part of the church simply due to his desire to enter the church.

What the men clearly meant is that people could be non-Christian if they choose and not be deprived of the state of grace that some Christians believe to be their exclusive domain.

According to them, what matters more in the equation is how one leads one's life whether one accepts Allah, a stone their ancestors live in, or admit they do not know. Even those who say there is no God are admitted mercy by a God who is not so self important as to demand that His fallible creatures be correct 100% of the time.

Sure it's easy to build bridges when you don't actually believe in anything, or believe in absolute truth.

I agree that folks ought to be welcome to the church regardless of their beliefs, but in order to become a member should require the candidate to profess the teachings of the church.

Who says they don't believe in anything?

They fail to agree with you about my coming breakfast of brimestone, but that does not mean they believe nothing.

What they beleive is as absolute as what you profess. They simply go about it without damning others.

Are you threatened by the concept of Christians who do not believe in damnation based on dogma?

BTW, which dogma is a real guard against buring? Are Anglicans going to burn? Mormons?

Is Phelps going up while an aethiest who leads an otherwise saintly life is going down?

I like cybershy's analogy of the brick wall. If you sincerely believe in hell, then warning someone is not intending to cause harm.

Not intending harm and not doing harm are not the same thing.

This is especially important on this topic when it comes to young minds and the attitude of 'what harm is there'? There can be a lot of harm.

Because so far the only harm that has been enumerated is 'friction' from a Christian attempting to share his faith. That to me is on a whole different level the then muslim who believes that unbelievers should be killed.

And communities that insist on keeping multiple child brides, and people who want to kill doctors, and 200 or so kool-aid drinkers, and another 50 or so at Koresh's compound, and people who show up at funerals of strangers to berate their families, and, and, and...

Please don't insult us with feigned innocence and a whitewash, Ben. You know very well that a great many insults to God have been carried out in His name and we don't have to go back very far to find them.

[Flip McWho]

NYE you're using a few particular branches of Christians and using them as a stereotype for all Christians. There's many different branches, some of them are insane and some of them aren't as insane and some of them are annoying and others aren't.

And religion causes a very stable society, religious tolerance on the other hand doesn't so much.

[notyoueither]

As for what the non-Christian can run into in this society...

I was disciplined in school when I was 10 years old for the offence of stating to a fellow student that 'I do not believe in Christ'.

This was a public school. It was thought that I was causing a disruption. I was sent home to mommy for indoctrination.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
NYE you're using a few particular branches of Christians and using them as a stereotype for all Christians. There's many different branches, some of them are insane and some of them aren't as insane and some of them are annoying and others aren't.

And religion causes a very stable society, religious tolerance on the other hand doesn't so much.

A. No, I'm not. I am quite able to differentiate between some Christians and Christianity in general,

and B, I couldn't disagree with you more on the assertion of what makes society more stable.

Fear can lead to a false sense of stability, because people are too afraid to speak their minds.

Real tolerance leads to much greater stability because people will not simply camp out in their own corners, but will actively support one another whatever their denomination.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As for what the non-Christian can run into in this society...

I was disciplined in school when I was 10 years old for the offence of stating to a fellow student that 'I do not believe in Christ'.

This was a public school. It was thought that I was causing a disruption. I was sent home to mommy for indoctrination.

See, that is wrong, and should be illegal. But it is fastly different then a lot of what you have posted, which seems to be against the expression of ideas.

JM

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


See, that is wrong, and should be illegal. But it is fastly different then a lot of what you have posted, which seems to be against the expression of ideas.

JM

Is the expression of an idea like, 'you will be rewarded with 72 virgins if you strap this thing on and go blow yourself up' acceptable?

[notyoueither]

Now, where does the coercion of 'either you're with us and you go to heaven or you burn!' fit in when part of the syllabus for six-year olds?

[Jon Miller]

So you support spying on what parents teach their kids.. and pulling them out of the home if it is deemed 'inappropriate' by the state?

Jon Miller

[notyoueither]

Did I say that?