Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
font color="palegreen">Corporations have to comply with anti-discrimination laws in their employment policies to allow all workers an equal chance for advancement and other employment opportunities. That is true of any business.
Charities and "non-profit" organizations, on the other hand, do NOT have to comply. There are no restrictions on who they hire, nor how they distribute any money they raise. And some organizations (such as the NAACP) are discriminatory by their very nature. They are set up to help ONE segment of the American population and nobody else. Is that fair? Yes, it is. Because the gov't can't dictate who the NAACP or United Way or Salvation Army can help, nor do they have any say as to what policies these organizations promote.
|
Citing religious beliefs as a reason for allowing discrimination is just lame d00d ,
Why should an organisation be allowed to refuse to hire someone, simply because of his or her sex or sexuality except under extraordinary circumstances? What you are implying is that it’s okay for religions to discriminate against people, simply because it’s part of their belief, what makes religion so special that this should be allowed?
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
No, I don't. The choice may not be a conscious decision on the person's part, but there is no conclusive evidence to support the theory that it is a "genetic pre-disposition". If it were, then the "genetic anomaly" would be present in every gay person's DNA. But that simply isn't the case.
|
If it isn’t a conscious choice, it isn’t a lifestyle choice.
People who are gHeY basically have the part of their brain that controls sexual attraction slightly differently from heterosexual men, put simply it doesn’t pick up testosterone as well, the hormone testosterone is what tells men to be attracted to women, without this hormone the part of the brain the controls sexual attraction “defaults” to men, therefore it is not in anyway a consciousness decision, also we do not know what all of our genes do yet, therefore, it is quite possible many people of education agree, that this failure by part of the brain to pick up testosterone is actually a genetic deviance from the “standard” male template.
Some have hazarded a guess it may be something to do with the way in which our gender clocks activate and perhaps the sexual attraction parts of the brain being left out or underdeveloped, since all foetuses up till about 14 weeks develop as females and only then do the hormones that control gender activate.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
This is where we disagree. Declaring that homosexuality is a sin is NOT the same as Gay-Bashing. The Bible also says that adultery and lusting after a woman other than your wife are sins. These are other forms of "sexual impurity".
I'll grant you the second example though. The ambassodor should be judged on his effectiveness in dealing with foreign nations, not his sexual preference.
|
First of all Christianity & the bible supposedly preaches tolerance and love, being gHeY is not a conscious choice and is most likely caused by genetic or developmental anomalies, it also occurs in non-human animals as well, and it is an entirely natural thing.
It is also consenting acts and/or love between two adults of legal age.
Therefore if these churches are truly tolerant and promoting of love and happiness they will treat being gHeY no different from being straight, otherwise they are simply being discriminatory without good reason, other than “god doesn’t like it” which of course goes against their principles, and it counts as gay bashing (and hypocrisy) on their part therefore if they condemn it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Then again, if you looked at Christianity objectively, perhaps you would discover your numbers are exaggerated. In Biblical times, the Pharisees were the religious rulers, and they were an exceptionally pious bunch, considering themselves "above the common man" because of their "religious insight". Jesus came to show the fallacy of the Pharisees. He came to show that God loves every single person and that His Holy Grace is NOT restricted by social boundaries established by man.
Yes, atrocities have been committed in the name of religion - this is NOT the same as being "inspired" by religion. Just as the Civil War was not "inspired" by slavery. Lincoln used slavery to help justify the war. It was started because some states wanted to secede from the Union (which they had a Constitutional right to do, BTW).
But there are thousands and thousands of Christians who continually minister to the poor, who establish goodwill shelters for those with no home, missionaries who risk their very lives to spread God's Word to other nations.
|
Actually religion has inspired evil deeds, what were the crusades but “inspired by god”? (In the words of a pope). Not only does it inspire them, it also justifies them,
If something, which is supposed to be about peace and love, has justified genocide, burning at the stake, discrimination, racism, war and a whole host of other nasty things shouldn’t we be looking at whether it is fundamentally flawed?
I mean the bible is so vague and open you can justify anything you like from it, surely if religion was all about peace and love, you’d only be able to justify peace and love with it? Whereas you can actually justify killing adulterers and homosexuals with it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
For every religious atrocity you can name, there are literally thousands of nameless Christians who bring the message of God's Love to many thousands more through their actions as well as their words.
There are also other causes that have done just as much damage. Hitler attempted genocide of the Jews in the name of Social Darwinism and China is still committing horrible atrocities on it's own people in the name of Social Communism. Are these ideals the cause of the atrocities, or merely the tools used by aberrants to justify their actions?
|
Sorry d00d but that’s irrelevant, an atrocity is still an atrocity no matter how many others are committed.
[quote]Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Did you have a really bad personal experience, or do you just dislike religion on general principal?
I'm honostly and sincerely curious about this, so don't classify it as another "Ad-Hominem" attack, because it isn't. I just want to know your motivation.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
font color="palegreen">Unfortunately, I can't argue with some of your points here. There are a lot of hypocritical Christians who think they're better than the non-believer because of their relationship with Christ. The truth is that - if they're relationship with Christ was as true as they portray it to be - they would never act the way they do. They often the Pope to Billy Graham to Osama bin Laden...we are ALL God's creations and He loves ALL of us equally as such. He may not love the actions of His creations equally, but that doesn't change how He feels about the individual.
You keep telling Yorick that "the burden of proof for God's existence is on him". I can tell you for a fact that God is real, because I have felt His touch personally in my life, but that won't really prove anything to you (just like you can't prove to Neb that you actually exist).
act like the Pharisees and say "I'm better than you because Jesus loves me". What they forget is that Jesus loves EVERYBODY equally. From
You do have to accept God's existence on faith (at first). Once you do that, though, God Himself will "prove" to you that He really does exist.
Here's an example to illustrate my point. When I was very young (5-6), my cousin tried to get me to drop a plastic glass onto the sidewalk in front of her house. I refused to do it because I thought she was trying to trick me into breaking the glass and getting into trouble. She wouldn't drop the glass either. She said I would just have to trust her. Eventually, curiosity won out and I dropped the glass. Imagine my surprise when my "leap of faith" proved she was right.
God is just as real as that plastic cup was unbreakable. But...you have to accept it on faith before it can be proven.
|
Why should I do that?
If I want a new car, I will not buy, it if when I ask about the chances of it breaking down, the sales man says, “You must have faith that it won’t”
If a scientist puts forth a theory, if they said, “you must have faith that it is right” they’d be laughed at. They would have to try a prove it or at least get evidence through experiments.
If I wish to find a politician to vote for, I will not vote for him because he simply says, “you must have faith that my ideology will work” I will examine my books of knowledge and see what economic fact & theory has to say about their polices etc etc