Moderator: Moderators
So, the questions for debate are:1John2_26 wrote:I consider what is happening to Christians as a hate crime. And liberal theologians are on the side of the hatred.
First, I would ask why anyone should provide a refutation for a point that is irrelevant to the discussion. McCulloch asks for an example of terrorism in public schools that is allowed or sanctioned by the government in a liberal democracy. Your response does not address this is any way.1John wrote:McCulloch wrote:Any liberal democracy? Can you provide an example of terrorism in public schools that is being allowed or sanctioned by any liberal democracy? etc. etc. is a bit vague.
Mental and emotional trauma is claimed by many people as being someething they actually suffer from Christian "Judgments" without any physical actions being leveled against them. Hate crime speech.
YET, Christians are ridiculed for their beliefs about marriage, family, sexual purity and relentlessly hounded by a secular public intolerant of the Christian to believe what they believe. And, have passed laws to that effect.
I'd like to see a refutation of that.
I don't believe you actually wrote that John. I don't know if it is anti-semitic but it is ignorant.The holocuast never happened because there is no real proof that Jews are actually Jews.
Is that not seen as an anti-Semitic statement?
Jesus married or not would not change the mythic meaning."The myth called Christianity." The Jesus myth that ignorant fundamentalists force on educated and civilized people. Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene.
None of this is relevant to the thread. The thread has to do with hate crimes, not alleged insults or offenses.1John wrote:"The myth called Christianity." The Jesus myth that ignorant fundamentalists force on educated and civilized people. Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene.
That is seen as just fine. It is unbelievable blasphemy and incredible insult that no one would dare do to Mohammad, who was just a dude in a cave.
It seems that Christian-bashing is seen as an intellectual pursuit to right the wrongs of something that did something wrong to the world.
I have yet to see evidence that this is the case.1John wrote:Now even by laws, Christians cannot do what they have always done for two-thousand years i.e., preach the Gospel and evangelize the lost. That is now seen as hate speech and laws have specifically been written to deal specifically with Christians.
Yes, there is such a law as the Unruh Act. Here is a summary.The Uruh act in California is an example. There is no such thing as seperation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution. BUT, Christians have been systematically outlawed from being able to practice their faith in schools all the way up to universities.
Further details can be found hereUnruh Act: Sexual Orientation and Marital Status
The Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act") prohibits business establishments from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, and provides civil remedies for violations.
Because marital status and sexual orientation are not explicitly listed in the Unruh Act and the term "sex" does not include gender identity, it has been unclear whether these categories are protected under the Unruh Act. AB 1400 clarifies the Unruh Act to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation.
Very relevant to this thread is forcing the homosexualization onto Christians that have every right to believe homosexuality removes you from being a Christian and places you into another religion. Sodomy is not Christianity. How has modern man come to the place when private sexual acts have become a minority classifying definition?1John wrote:
"The myth called Christianity." The Jesus myth that ignorant fundamentalists force on educated and civilized people. Jesus having sex with Mary Magdalene.
That is seen as just fine. It is unbelievable blasphemy and incredible insult that no one would dare do to Mohammad, who was just a dude in a cave.
It seems that Christian-bashing is seen as an intellectual pursuit to right the wrongs of something that did something wrong to the world.
None of this is relevant to the thread. The thread has to do with hate crimes, not alleged insults or offenses.
1John wrote:
Now even by laws, Christians cannot do what they have always done for two-thousand years i.e., preach the Gospel and evangelize the lost. That is now seen as hate speech and laws have specifically been written to deal specifically with Christians.
I have yet to see evidence that this is the case.
Christians are out evangelizing all the time. In my town, I saw some door to door evangelists just yesterday. I saw a whole slew of them on a train in Chicago last weekend. Can you cite any examples of people being arrested only for publically evangelizing, and not for violating other standard laws (e.g. trespassing).
What laws have been passed that specifically mention Christianity and have the effect of limiting peoples' right to practice Christianity?
Quote:
The Uruh act in California is an example. There is no such thing as seperation of church and state anywhere in the Constitution. BUT, Christians have been systematically outlawed from being able to practice their faith in schools all the way up to universities.
Yes, there is such a law as the Unruh Act. Here is a summary.
Quote:
Unruh Act: Sexual Orientation and Marital Status
The Unruh Civil Rights Act ("Unruh Act") prohibits business establishments from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition, and provides civil remedies for violations.
Because marital status and sexual orientation are not explicitly listed in the Unruh Act and the term "sex" does not include gender identity, it has been unclear whether these categories are protected under the Unruh Act. AB 1400 clarifies the Unruh Act to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation.
Further details can be found here
Contrary to your characterization, this act specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, among other things. It says nothing about prohibiting people from practicing their faith. I didn't see that it said anything specifically about Christianity. You seem to be mistaken.
Listen carefully. Prohibiting people from discriminating against certain groups, including homosexuals, does NOT constitute a criminalization of any religion. The only thing you have succeeded in showing is that you do not like it when you or others are not allowed to discriminate against homosexuals.
It might help if you provide an example of how you believe the Unruh act has been used against Christians. Please be specific, and provide some objective evidence.
In addition, the Unruh act is classified as a Civil Rights Act, not a Hate Crime Law.
To sum up, all your objections seem to be mistaken, or are entirely irrelevant to the thread.
Teen Girls Sue Christian School Over Expulsion For Improper Behavior
The right of religious schools to set moral standards is under attack by two girls who were expelled from a Lutheran school in 2005 over alleged homosexual attractions.
April 3, 2006 -- A Riverside Superior Court Judge has granted two girls the right to sue the California Lutheran High School Association for allegedly discriminating against them because of their sexual attractions to each other.
Superior Court Judge Gloria Connor Trask has agreed to let this case go to trial instead of dismissing it as a frivolous lawsuit directly attacking the right of Christian schools to enforce a Code of Conduct upon the students who voluntarily attend. A hearing on this case is scheduled for July 9, 2006.
This case is a serious one and deserves to be watched closely. Homosexual activists are determined to impose their agenda in private religious schools and institutions regardless of First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion.
Nathan Barankin, communications director for California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said: “This is an unsettled area of the law. The public policy issues are religious freedom versus the right not to be discriminated against.”
The lawsuit, Mother Doe v. California Lutheran High School Association resulted from the expulsion of two girls from a California Lutheran High School who admitted they had strong feelings for each other. The girls’ lawyers refuse to say if they are practicing homosexuals.
The school, located in Wildomar, California, is operated by the California Lutheran High School Association and is part of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
In September 2005, School Principal Gregory Bork interviewed both girls separately and determined that they could not remain in the school if they pursued a homosexual relationship.
On September 15, Bork wrote a letter to the parents of the girls saying that “while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a relationship is un-Christian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it. That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles.”
The lawsuit was filed against the high school association and Mr. Bork. It alleges that Bork’s expulsion of the girls violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses operating in the state to engage in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation.
Girls’ Lawyers Claim Principal ‘Imprisoned’ Them During Interview
Lawyers suing for the girls claim that California Lutheran is a business and should be covered under Unruh.
Lawyers for the girls are also claiming that Bork violated their “right to privacy” by briefing school staff on the situation and by sending a letter to the girls’ parents explaining why they were expelled.
In addition, the lawsuit alleges that Bork “falsely imprisoned” the girls by interviewing each one of them to determine the facts about their relationship.
Attorney John McKay, who represents Principal Bork and the California Lutheran High School Association, has filed several legal briefs in this case over the past several months in response to the lawsuit.
In a brief filed on December 15, 2005, Mr. McKay points out that the California Lutheran High School (CLHS) is a “non-profit, educational institution owned and operated by an association of Lutheran congregations in California.”
McKay points out that even if the CLHS is considered a “business establishment” under California law, any sexual orientation law could not be applied to the school without violating the “expressive association rights granted to CLHS and its members. The U.S. and California Constitutions provide individuals the right to associate with others in the pursuit of certain religious ideals. ... Government actions which force a group to accept members it does not desire constitutes an unconstitutional burden on this freedom of association.”
McKay cites the case of Boys Scouts v. Dale (2000). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the right to establish membership qualifications for its organization. It could reasonably exclude homosexuals from the Scouts as a violation of its standards.
Likewise, a religiously-affiliated group has the right to establish moral standards for its members and can expel individuals who violate those standards. If this standard applies to the Boy Scouts and other private organizations, it must apply to a Christian school, which will base its code of conduct upon the Bible.
According to McKay, “CLHS’ official position is that homosexuality is immoral conduct, and that principle is provided First Amendment protection. In addition, a court order requiring defendants [the school] to suppress their own religious beliefs in order to accommodate plaintiff’s request to continue as students at CLHS would constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause.”
McKay also responded to the allegation that the girls had been subjected to false imprisonment by being interviewed by Principal Bork. McKay noted: “... plaintiffs cannot assert a claim against him [Bork] for false imprisonment or impute liability for his acts upon CLHS. ... courts have acknowledged that the detention and questioning of a student by a school official during school hours is justified when such questioning is necessary to ‘maintain order, prevent disruption of other students’ educational experience and impose discipline.’ Defendant Bork’s alleged detention of the plaintiffs fulfilled these authorized goals.”
Religious Institutions Are Exempt From Sexual Orientation Laws
California Education Code section 220 forbids educational institutions to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Section 220.5, however, says this: “This article shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application would not be consistent with the religious tenets of that organization.”
Attorney Christopher Hayes, who represents the two girls thinks the school is violating the Unruh Act: “We believe that California law is clear. The California Unruh Civil Rights Act ... prohibits businesses from discriminating against people for various reasons.”
Attorney John McKay says his clients are protected by the First Amendment, which “is more important than any legislative act.” He says this case pits Unruh against a private religious school and is a “case of first impression,” meaning it has not been resolved in past legal cases.
This case may eventually reach the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. If it does, it is likely that the radical liberals on this court will rule against the religious freedom rights of private Christian schools—in favor of homosexuals. A decision of this magnitude could impact the religious freedom of the 56 million Americans who live in the states and U.S. territories under the domain of the 9th. TVC’s report on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals explains why Congress must split this court into two or three new federal court systems.
Homosexuals Win Victory Over Christians In Canada
The attacks against religious freedom are well advanced in Canada. What is happening in Canada is a foretaste of what Christians face here in the United States at the hands of militant homosexuals.
The First Amendment and its guarantee of religious freedom apparently mean nothing to homosexual activists. Their goal is to impose their agenda upon all American institutions—including religious institutions that have normally been considered off limits to immoral social engineering.
In 1999, for example, when Congress was debating passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, homosexual columnist Deb Price argued against its passage. She said: “Religion should not be treated as a ‘Get Out Of Jail Free’ card that lets people pick and choose which laws to obey. ... We each have a right to our own private religious beliefs. However, when we enter the public sphere, we have a shared civil duty to respect one another’s legal rights.” In short, religious freedom is irrelevant when homosexuality is concerned.
In Canada, homosexual activists and their liberal allies in the court system have established an ever-tightening web of restrictions upon Christians who are critical of homosexual conduct.
In “Privilege of Speech in a ‘Pleasantly Authoritarian Country’: How Canada’s Judiciary Allowed Laws Proscribing Discourse Critical of Homosexuality to Trump Free Speech and Religious Liberty,” published in the Vanderbilt Transnational Law Journal describes the destruction of religious freedom in Canada over homosexual sodomy.
American Christians and other religious faiths face the same threats from homosexual activists.
This and statements like it are blatant hyperbole. The homosexual movement recognizes and does not wish to change those who freely choose to be hetero.1John2_26 wrote:Yet it seems you and those supporting the homosexulization of every Christian is not a violation of their religious and constitutional rights.
I would most profoundly disagree. No person has a right to determine who is or is not Christian, except for themselves. My Christianity is between Jesus and me. You have nothing to say about it. This is clearly supported in the Bible.1John wrote:Christians have the right to say who is and who is not a Christian and if you notice the Constitution cannot implement laws to force us otherwise.
Here is one way to be saved, and this would include becoming a Christian. I don't see that I need anyone else's approval to do this, or that anyone else even has to be informed.In Romans Chapter 10, The Apostle Paul wrote:if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
It is not up to you to decide whether or not I am a Christian based on disagreements we have. If I profess to be a Christian and serve the Lord, then my particular beliefs, faults, actions, etc. as far as they are relevant to my Christianity are between Him and me. For you to somehow say that you or any group of people who believe as you do have the right to somehow 'expel' me or others who don't agree with you on all aspects of Christianity is unbiblical. It seems to me you are ascribing to yourself a power which, according to the Bible, only God has.In Romans 14, Paul wrote:1Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
What do you mean by forcing homosexualization onto Christians? If you mean somehow forcing people to perform homosexual acts, or even force them to believe that homosexuality is not immoral, I have certainly never advocated any such thing.1John wrote:Very relevant to this thread is forcing the homosexualization onto Christians that have every right to believe homosexuality removes you from being a Christian and places you into another religion.
Again, please explain what you mean by the 'homosexualization of every Christian.'Yet it seems you and those supporting the homosexulization of every Christian is not a violation of their religious and constitutional rights.
A few comments:
Nathan Barankin, communications director for California State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said: “This is an unsettled area of the law. The public policy issues are religious freedom versus the right not to be discriminated against.”
On September 15, Bork wrote a letter to the parents of the girls saying that “while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ... Such a relationship is un-Christian. To allow the girls to attend (Cal Lutheran) ... would send a message to students and parents that we either condone this situation and/or will not do anything about it. That message would not reflect our beliefs and principles.”
The lawsuit was filed against the high school association and Mr. Bork. It alleges that Bork’s expulsion of the girls violates California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids businesses operating in the state to engage in discrimination against any person’s sexual orientation.
