Campus Police Allow Students to Desecrate Crosses??? (crime, abortions, government)
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.
It's plain and simple disrespect. The pro-lifers got permission. to erect the crosses. I understand the pro-choice crowd has right to express themselves bit, not by modifying what the pro-lifers did. I would desecrate a cross and I'm pro-choice.
Blah blah blah Jesus blah blah blah Jesus... yes it was both a political and religious statement, both of which are bound to incite controversy. Would you be defending a pro-choice display where they displayed anti-Christian symbolism? How do you feel about the famous "**** Christ" art installation, and what would you say if it were displayed at a public campus?
In your first line, you show yourself to be a very hostile person, in that you'd disrespect the Lamb of God, the person who died for your sins.
The Bible does state that being a follower of Christ is offensive to those in the world.
Here's your problem with your "pro-choice" display. First of all, practicing one's religion, in any manner, is covered under the first amendment. What you're talking about is discrimination against those of the Christian Faith. Wouldn't the Civil Rights Act (as much as I find it to be unconstitutional) cover that? Second of all, such a display would be obscene and thus not held to standard political speech. Thus, it would fall under being prohibited under obscenity laws.
"Sohl called campus police – but they refused to intervene – citing First Amendment concerns."
I think mandatory enrollment in a course on the Constitution and the real meaning of Free Speech is in line for the Campus Police. Although, judging by the reports of other members of the faculty here, I doubt you'd be able to find such a course on this campus.
Who says there isn't a war on religion?
I say there is not, at least no more than there ever was. Even Christ faced his own demons in the desert.
As for the police, I think they are well schooled, and correct.
This whole report reminds me of the outrage in the 70s when students were burning flags and wearing flags on their butts. We survived that folly, and we will survive this one.
Don't make mountains of molehills. Practice your religion and don't worry about the splinters in another's eyes.
Be well. Go with God. Let God take care of the rest.
Please grab yourself a legal dictionary and learn the meaning of murder.
Okay, will do that:
From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary
Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as
Murder: :the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
So, I've grabbed a dictionary. I've looked at the meaning of murder, and lo and behold, it states that murder is about killing a person (check) and with aforethought (check). Regardless of whether it is lawful or not, murder is murder. In many countries, abortion is illegal, and it was illegal prior to 1973. Thus, legality has nothing to do with it. Murder is about killing someone in a premeditated fashion. It's about the ending of a life. It's obvious that they've placed "unlawfully" in the discussion to defend the indefensible, the murder of unborn child, which they left likes to advocate under their insane banner of "choice".
In the very least, you must admit that it is intentional killing.
Do you support killing unborn children?
Are you okay with people killing unborn children such as these?
And yes, almost every Conservative/Fundamentalist Christian I've ever met is self-righteous and ignorant. Goes with the territory.
Saying it doesn't make it so. If you can't back it up, don't say it. Where's the "not knowing" here? You just don't have anything.
Quote:
You don't even know the meaning of the word "murder", yet you keep throwing it around.
Was it intentional?
Did it result in a death?
Was it planned ahead of time?
That's murder.
Who cares whether the "legal definition" relating to legality changed it in the mid 70s, it fits the universal, long standing definition. You want to be semantical about it, but the reality is, if you kill an unborn child in cold blood, you are a murderer.
Quote:
It's a public university, which means it's funded by taxpayers, and therefore falls under the Constitutional parameters of the 1st Amendment.
You've likely never read the Constitution, still believing there to be a "Separation of Church and State" because your liberal ideologues promote that nonsensical idea. The Constitution allows for freedom of religion. If being in a public sphere meant that one couldn't practice religion, then you'd never have heard the name of Jesus evoked on the floors of congress, done so multiple times after the passage of the Constitution, or the name of God evoked. It's mentioned in our founding documents, too.
Quote:
There is both actually. You can't have freedom of religion, unless you can be free from it's unlawful interference too.
So you're contending that if people who practice their faith are within eye-sight of you, then they can't practice their religion? I don't recall that being in the Constitution. Why? Cause it's not there. There is no law against being offended.
There aren't any grounds for this being wrong/illegal unless you think the cross is holy. To place the cross on such a pedestal that vandalizing it in such a nonchalant way is illegal is tantamount to making Christianity the official state religion.
Sorry friends, but just because someone hurts your feelings doesn't mean you get to arrest them.
The Bible also says those who are judgmental and self-righteous will be told by Jesus he does not know them.
Try reading your posts sometime.
Actually, this is where you're interpreting one scripture incorrectly. The Bible is clear that you should stand up for righteousness. The "turn the other cheek" argument relates to interpersonal conflicts between person to person, not the society as a whole.
When someone advocates something wrong, ungodly, or downright disrespectful, should I stand by and say, "you're right". Of course not. If I were having a personal conflict with someone, not related to the society as a whole, and that person treated me badly, Jesus calls us to not escalate it. That is where the whole "turn the other cheek" argument comes from.
Christians are supposed to be salt and light to the world. That means showing the world what is righteous and leading them to Christ. It doesn't mean not doing a thing.
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.