Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And out of fear of an imaginary scenario the almighty government steps in to edit to Bible, and to ban sections of it.
And somehow some people believe it is done to "protect the public".
Josef Goebbels would have been proud of these people.
But it is only not allowed for that section of the public that your are responding to, in other words the ban only applies to people in dentention or held in government institutions. These are the ones that are most vulnerable. How hard is it for people of all faiths to go into a place that is not a place of worship and not give their opinions of homosexuality? Is providing, wanted or not, the minister's opinion on homosexuality the important service to provide youths that are being held in detention? Again this is within a government institution funded by taxpayers dollars holding persons of all faiths and of no faiths and are more than likley troubled individuals to begin with. Is the minister's right to go into a governemnt instituton and preach their opinion about homosexuality a case of relgious freedom of the minister or the state's obilgation to look after the welfare of their charges? Some places offering your religous convictions, opinions and judgements are just not appropiate.
That imaginary scenario is much more likley than the many ones put forth on this forum such as outlawing Christianity or making people love homosexuality or banning certain sermons in churchs.
But it is only not allowed for that section of the public that your are responding to, in other words the ban only applies to people in dentention or held in government institutions. These are the ones that are most vulnerable. How hard is it for people of all faiths to go into a place that is not a place of worship and not give their opinions of homosexuality? Is providing, wanted or not, the minister's opinion on homosexuality the important service to provide youths that are being held in detention? Again this is within a government institution funded by taxpayers dollars holding persons of all faiths and of no faiths and are more than likley troubled individuals to begin with. Is the minister's right to go into a governemnt instituton and preach their opinion about homosexuality a case of relgious freedom of the minister or the state's obilgation to look after the welfare of their charges? Some places offering your religous convictions, opinions and judgements are just not appropiate.
That imaginary scenario is much more likley than the many ones put forth on this forum such as outlawing Christianity or making people love homosexuality or banning certain sermons in churchs.
"Of" is not "from" .... nor should the "or" be ignored or as is currently happening, the outright bastardizing of the meaning and intent into something other than is being defined never contemplated by the original framers.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Constitution of the United States
Last edited by twin.spin; 08-06-2015 at 08:45 AM..
Finn, that scenario has been shown to represent things that really have happened and THAT fact is the basis for the requirement.
What else has shown to cause harm? Music? Yes. Movies? Absolutely. Video games? Yep. Automobiles? Oh, yes. Medication? Yep. Sports? Yes. Alcohol? Yes. Drinking too much water? Yes.
Ban them all?
Oh, but of course, anything to "protect the public".
NO!! Nazis, Soviets and North Koreans banned things under than excuse, and you want to copy-cat them?
The truth doesn't cause harm. You want to ban the truth, because some people are offended by it, and I think that is complete insanity.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 08-06-2015 at 09:09 AM..
What else has shown to cause harm? Music? Yes. Movies? Absolutely. Video games? Yep. Automobiles? Oh, yes. Medication? Yep. Sports? Yes. Alcohol? Yes. Drinking too much water? Yes.
Ban them all?
Oh, but of course, anything to "protect the public".
NO!! Nazis, Soviets and North Koreans banned things under than excuse, and you want to copy-cat them?
YES, manyof these ARE BANNED from juvenile lock down facilities.
One day, I was playing some music in my class. SOme soft R & B when this song comes on..
Out of the blue, this 16 year old girl stands up from her desk, grabs a chair, and tosses it through a 4 X 6 foot window. She grabs another chair and does another window before 2 of us can stop her.
WHY>?
Because that song had been playing in the radio a year ago when her mom, and 2 brothers were killed in a drive-by shooting of her house in Detroit and all those emotions blew through her mind when she heard that song..
So yes, there are certain things that must be BANNED when dealing with the psychologically fragile..or in juvenile lock down which is the TOPIC and ENVIRONMENT of this THREAD...
"Of" is not "from" .... nor should the "or" be ignored or as is currently happening outright bastardized the meaning into something other than is being defined never contemplated by the original framers.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Constitution of the United States
So a pastor or minister can visit an inmate and he or she has zero rights not to hear a sermon because there is no right to freedom from religion? The inmate has not rights but the minister does? Do you believe that public servants have the religious rights to conduct government business according to their own personal beleifs rather than the law?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.