# Ontario publicly funded Catholic school bans rainbows



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Ontario publicly funded Catholic school bans rainbows*, appropriates student donations for LGBT cause and gives them to Catholic charity. 



> “We brought signs and posters with rainbows, and we were told that we can’t put them up,” says Iskander, who was recently named the 2011 honoured **** and youth grand marshal. “They said rainbows are associated with Pride. There’s so many other things that a rainbow could be. It’s ridiculous.”


As a Christian, I am continually saddened how the religion is constantly not only behind, but a hindrance to social issues. 

*CNN has just done a great 3 part series* regarding George Rekers' 'therapy' to change gays to straights, or the so-called "Sissy boy" experiments. The experiments still get cited today as proof of therapy working, meanwhile, the boy.. now 38 who the experiments were conducted on, committed suicide. 

Apple was in the news recently for removing the *gay cure app* from their app store after huge demand. '

Banning rainbows....  Oh the ironing coming from a religious organization. 

This issue is really coming to light, and more and more people are stepping out and saying enough is enough. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Our tax dollars shouldn't be funding Catholic schools at all. It disgusts me that tax dollars being spent on this crap.

If people want to shove their religion onto the next generation, then they should be paying for it themselves.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

ehMax said:


> As a Christian, I am continually saddened how the religion is constantly not only behind, but a hindrance to social issues.


When you're a true Christian, your religion, faith and beliefs do not change like society does over the decades or centuries regardless of pretty much anything.

That said, banning rainbows is pretty ridiculous. A rainbow is hardly connected to "pride."


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Lars said:


> When you're a true Christian, your religion, faith and beliefs do not change like society does over the decades or centuries regardless of pretty much anything.


When you're a true Christian, you follow Christ. 

If anyone can cite me one single solitary reasonable example of what Christ ever did or said that would make the actions of that school board reflect Christ, I will go along. If you like though, I could cite hundreds of things that would show it does not reflect Christ. 

Thankfully, the establishment has slowly changed over the decades from many un-Christ-like "beliefs" such as the role and value of women in church, racism and many other issues. Which I have already dismayed about, is very often not only behind, but a hindrance to.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2011)

And from the article:



> Worse, they're also banning literature on sexual orientation, sexual health and safe sex.


It's bad enough with what they are imposing LGBT but to also ban this literature shows how far into the dark ages really are. I'm aghast at this whole situation.


----------



## chrisburke (May 11, 2010)

The thing that bugs me about this, is the fact that the rainbow is a Christian symbol.. After the flood, God gave a rainbow as a sign of his promise to never flood the earth again.. For whatever reason the gay community stole the symbol, and now you have a school, who is suppose to stand on Christian morals banning the symbol that was given to followers of christ... So frustrating


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ehMax said:


> As a Christian, I am continually saddened how the religion is constantly not only behind, but a hindrance to social issues.


I'm impressed that you (and many other Christians and adherents of other faiths) are able to admit this. Fortunately, I think it's pretty clear in this case that it's the Church, not the religion per se, that's the problem here, so you don't really need to feel that it reflects badly on you or your beliefs.

You're certainly right about the Catholic church being a hinderance to social development. It's like they somehow think things were better back in the 1300's.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chrisburke said:


> For whatever reason the gay community stole the symbol... So frustrating




What's frustrating is people thinking that stories and their symbology are somehow proprietary forever. If you want to talk about co-opting other people's symbology, look into the origins of the christ myth or the flood myth or most of the rest of Christian mythology. Christianity is a hodgepodge of stories and symbols from other cultures and religions that pre-date Christianity by hundred if not thousands of years.

If you think no one had considered rainbows symbolic before the guys who made up the stories in the bible, you're deluded.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

John Clay said:


> Our tax dollars shouldn't be funding Catholic schools at all. It disgusts me that tax dollars being spent on this crap.
> 
> If people want to shove their religion onto the next generation, then they should be paying for it themselves.


I couldn't agree more.

The biggest +1 to this.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

chrisburke said:


> The thing that bugs me about this, is the fact that the rainbow is a Christian symbol.. After the flood, God gave a rainbow as a sign of his promise to never flood the earth again.. For whatever reason the gay community stole the symbol, and now you have a school, who is suppose to stand on Christian morals banning the symbol that was given to followers of christ... So frustrating


Yer kidding right? A rainbow is a Christian symbol? As a devout Possibilitarian I can possibly see how some weird things might actually be true but this is ridiculous. Rainbows beat your unoriginal religion by eons.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Duh the Noah's Ark tale preceded the birth of Christ and Mohammed and should therefore be symbolic to Judaism, Christianity and Islam as all have common roots.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

darkscot said:


> Yer kidding right? A rainbow is a Christian symbol? As a devout Possibilitarian I can possibly see how some weird things might actually be true but this is ridiculous. Rainbows beat your unoriginal religion by eons.


The story is true and every Christian believes it. Sorry, buddy.

@bryanc - it's going to be fun proving you wrong one day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The problem is that tax dollars are funding those schools. I couldn't care less if they smash rainbows on their own time.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

Lars said:


> The story is true and every Christian believes it. Sorry, buddy.
> 
> @bryanc - it's going to be fun proving you wrong one day.


Some people will believe a lot of things, regardless of their validity or factual basis.

If you're willing to believe that an all-powerful being created the world, designed humans and everything else in existence, then I've got a nice bridge to sell you.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

We have a religious thread already for general religious talk, this thread was created for a more specific important issue.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Well so what if the rainbow was a Christian symbol? The swastika was a Hindu symbol--but it has a very different meaning for most of the world. 

There's no reason why one particular symbol has to only mean one thing forever and ever and always.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

John Clay said:


> Some people will believe a lot of things, regardless of their validity or factual basis.
> 
> If you're willing to believe that an all-powerful being created the world, designed humans and everything else in existence, then I've got a nice bridge to sell you.


Trade you my bridge for your bridge. Interested?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Shocker!
Imagine the nerve of a Catholic school banning the promotion of homosexuality to its children! Whats next, PETA banning fur coats at their meetings?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

John Clay said:


> Our tax dollars shouldn't be funding Catholic schools at all. It disgusts me that tax dollars being spent on this crap.
> 
> If people want to shove their religion onto the next generation, then they should be paying for it themselves.


Yeah because everyone knows that none of the parents that make the CHOICE to send their children to Catholic Schools pay taxes, own businesses or contribute financially to the province in any way. All schools should be modelled by the values de jour of the Liberals and atheists that pay for everything. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Yeah because everyone knows that none of the parents that make the CHOICE to send their children to Catholic Schools pay taxes, own businesses or contribute financially to the province in any way. All schools should be modelled by the values de jour of the Liberals and atheists that pay for everything.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


I've got no issues with them funding their own schools - I take issue with the religious schools or institutions (of any sort) being funded by public tax dollars.

Public schools should be teaching fact, not fiction. Private schools can teach whatever they want, assuming they meet the requirements.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> If anyone can cite me one single solitary reasonable example of what Christ ever did or said that would make the actions of that school board reflect Christ, I will go along. If you like though, I could cite hundreds of things that would show it does not reflect Christ.


Hundreds? I'd love to hear a couple of verses where Jesus endorses homosexuality if you have them.

Here is one where he explains the nature of marriage and sexuality as God intended that is read at just about every Christian wedding ceremony on earth. 

And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

I don't read that as an endorsement of homosexuality but it sure would have been the moment to do it. A basic understanding of human anatomy doesn't support the notion that God designed people to engage in homosexual acts either.
I look forward to your biblical argument supporting homosexuality.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> Shocker!
> Imagine the nerve of a Catholic school banning the promotion of homosexuality to its children! Whats next, PETA banning fur coats at their meetings?


so you're all for PETA being funded by tax payer dollars?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Hundreds? I'd love to hear a couple of verses where Jesus endorses homosexuality if you have them.


I'd love to hear where he endorses diddler priests...LOL

Banning the rainbow is pretty silly if you ask me. Takes some of that homophobia to another level entirely. What with uninviting a homosexual to speak at a anti-homophobia/bullying event. More lulz there.

Lesbian comedian uninvited from performance at Catholic high school

Now, having said that, I don't see the same level of outrage with respect to this tax funded organization:

Teachers targeting Ontario Tories | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

Looks like the education system in this country has definitely lost its way.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Have to agree about the public funding of Catholic schools is one bad move that has set back public education in the province of Ontario. 

What can you possibly say about an institution that took 500 years to admit they were wrong about Galileo, but never excommunicated Hitler? Given all the stuff that has come to light in recent years, I have to question why anyone would remain a Catholic. Clearly the church has comitted far worse sins than banning rainbows. Adherents will simply say that the church is made up of humans, and all humans are fallible. A proper response would be to endorse the mantra of "Network": I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!

You have the right to remain Catholic and expect more of the same. One should choose their voodoos with great caution. Putting the Catholic church in charge of public education is mass child abuse.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> Have to agree about the public funding of Catholic schools is one bad move that has set back public education in the province of Ontario.
> .


Funny you'd say that since statistically Catholic Schools are scoring better than Public in just about every aspect from standardized testing to school violence. If providing a better education and a safer environment is a bad thing, then I'd agree. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Funny you'd say that since statistically Catholic Schools are scoring better than Public in just about every aspect from standardized testing to school violence. If providing a better education and a safer environment is a bad thing, then I'd agree.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


You're probably right about the stats. I'm not surprised as In Ottawa the public board can't afford to build new schools. Catholic schools, on the other hand, keep sprouting up as their coffers are deep. This money should be diverted to non-religious public education. Fall election issue anyone?

Cheers!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

i-rui said:


> so you're all for PETA being funded by tax payer dollars?


Actually they do get charitable donation status and as I've often heard it argued here from the many anti-christians, that amounts to tax payer funding. 
However, if PETA effectively educated children in schools that met the provincial standards with a focus on eliminating cruelty to animals then why not. I actually support the privatization of all education, Catholic and Public included with equal funding being attached to each child so parents can send their children to the schools of their choice (that meet educational standards of course). It works wonderfully in some European countries producing smarter children with less cost. Crappy schools die off while good schools excel as the free market dictates. Heck you could even send your kids to the Rosie O'Donnell Rainbow Academy for that matter and have all the rainbow flags, condom machines and pink triangles you like. When it comes to education, I'm prochoice!

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Funny you'd say that since statistically Catholic Schools are scoring better than Public in just about every aspect from standardized testing to school violence. If providing *a better education* and a safer environment is a bad thing, then I'd agree.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Don't you mean a better indoctrination?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't care of they're producing superhumans. If they're tax payer funded then they have to follow our rules against discrimination. Period.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> You're probably right about the stats. I'm not surprised as In Ottawa the public board can't afford to build new schools. Catholic schools, on the other hand, keep sprouting up as their coffers are deep. This money should be diverted to non-religious public education. Fall election issue anyone?
> 
> Cheers!


Those schools are popping up to accommodate the growing enrolment in Catholic education. I think the Ottawa public board isn't building new schools because they can barely fill the ones they already have.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Don't you mean a better indoctrination?


And rainbow flags and pink triangles are not just that? LOL


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> And rainbow flags and pink triangles are not just that? LOL


Maybe they are if you view homosexuality as a choice, but no, not even then. They are simply symbols to illustrate pride in one's existence. They are not there to try to brainwash or recruit. 

The 'sins' of the Catholic Church are so great it amazes me that the Vatican wasn't burnt down long ago.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

MacGuiver said:


> Those schools are popping up to accommodate the growing enrolment in Catholic education. I think the Ottawa public board isn't building new schools because they can barely fill the ones they already have.


Sure there's lots of growth in Ottawa both Catholic and non-Catholic households. I can assure you the public schools are filled to the brim and overflow is accommodated by building temporary portables which have become permanent in recent decades. We need more funding to build new schools and an obvious source is to restore sanity to the public system and stop sponsoring institutionalized voodoo.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

mrjimmy;1103145
The 'sins' of the Catholic Church are so great it amazes me that the Vatican wasn't burnt down long ago.[/QUOTE said:


> In Andulasia in the south of Spain, anarcho-syndicalism overthrew the king's rule and the Catholic church and formed self governing councils from 1868 through to the 1930's when Franco introduced fascism into Spain with Hitler's help and the Catholic church. When the rebellion started all the churches were burned to the ground and priests were impaled on stakes. They were not well liked and to this day the region is known for its anti-Catholicism.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Now, having said that, I don't see the same level of outrage with respect to this tax funded organization:
> 
> Teachers targeting Ontario Tories | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun
> 
> Looks like the education system in this country has definitely lost its way.


i don't think a teacher's *union* is a "tax funded organization", but is instead funded by union dues.



MacGuiver said:


> Actually they do get charitable donation status and as I've often heard it argued here from the many anti-christians, that amounts to tax payer funding.


"charitable donation status" is not the same thing as "publicly funded". they really are different issues, and trying to compare one institution that uses the first to another which has the second is a false equivalency.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2011)

MacGuiver said:


> Shocker!
> Imagine the nerve of a Catholic school banning the promotion of homosexuality to its children! Whats next, PETA banning fur coats at their meetings?


How about banning literature regarding sexual education and safe sex? How do you feel about that one? Sounds to me like you're a bit (well a lot) homophobic, showing support and/or a rainbow is hardly promoting homosexuality and if you can't tell the difference I feel pity for you.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2011)

MacGuiver said:


> And rainbow flags and pink triangles are not just that? LOL


Sure, just like the pink hearts, yellow moons and orange clovers in your box of luck charms turn you into a little leprechaun. 

How do you feel about someone wearing a crucifix? Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel about it.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Oh no...
You mean that now they won't be able to watch the "Care Bears" anymore?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i don't think a teacher's *union* is a "tax funded organization", but is instead funded by union dues.
> .


The union funds itself through forcible deductions from teacher's salaries which are obtained through education taxes levied on all of us. It may be an indirect relationship, but there is a correlation. As such, they have no right to force members to fund political ads or events, or otherwise facilitate actions which may not represent the wishes of all members.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

kps said:


> The union funds itself through forcible deductions from teacher's salaries which are obtained through education taxes levied on all of us. It may be an indirect relationship, but there is a correlation. As such, they have no right to force members to fund political ads or events, or otherwise facilitate actions which may not represent the wishes of all members.


They have every right to. The union leadership is elected by the members of the union, to govern the union much like we elect a prime minister. Some members may disagree with how union funds are spent, but its well within their purview to spend the money.

Would you feel the same if the police union had a similar policy? Or other CUPE unions?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

mguertin said:


> How about banning literature regarding sexual education and safe sex? How do you feel about that one? Sounds to me like you're a bit (well a lot) homophobic, showing support and/or a rainbow is hardly promoting homosexuality and if you can't tell the difference I feel pity for you.


I find this post interesting. I went through our public system in the 60s. There was not even a hint of sex education in our school board. But times have changed, mainly due to societal changes, but it would appear that the school boards -- no matter what their religious slant -- are struggling with what is acceptable within the bounds of their dogma and what society will tolerate. All the text books of my era had a white office working father with a white June Cleaver mother, and two kids and a dog. Today fun with DIck and Jane takes on a more salacious form. Divorce was never mentioned in my school days, now we see current texts covering this issue....and we are also seeing texts which show children with two daddies or mummies ..... it's a shame we the adults haven't pressed out school boards to keep pace with the socially acceptable ( or legally bound ) shifts in our societal norms . If we hang around long enough we probably will look back on the gay-ness of our society want wonder what all the fuss was about.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Elected leadership or not, I don't agree with any union forcibly taking extra money from it's membership to organize political action. I'd have no problem with it on a volunteer bases. When I was a teamster, I've never been forced to pay extra money on top of my dues even then the mob ran it. LOL

I'm also not in favour of the idea of teachers abandoning their classrooms at the beginning of the school year to do political canvassing. We pay them to teach the kids and not to have subs come in for frivolous reasons. Initially, the union wasn't even going to pay for the subs, but after a public outcry, they decided to cough up.

It's all pretty ridiculous and borders on fascism. Members who are critics of this scheme are apparently ostracized and threatened.

Imagine for one second if these same union leaders wanted to support the Tories instead of the NDP and Libs. :lmao:


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

We have a Catholic school in our neighbourhood that has been closed for over a decade,
It could be used for a school, But for some reason they choose to keep it closed.

They even have no parking signs still up in front of it,
Such a waste of taxpayers money.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> The union funds itself through forcible deductions from teacher's salaries which are obtained through education taxes levied on all of us. It may be an indirect relationship, but there is a correlation.


lol. there is no correlation. the union dues are from the teacher's salaries. to pretend that it's public funding is silly.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> lol. there is no correlation. the union dues are from the teacher's salaries. to pretend that it's public funding is silly.


Why is it silly? They get paid from our taxes, they are not paid by private funds as would be the case if they taught at a private school.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> Hundreds? I'd love to hear a couple of verses where Jesus endorses homosexuality if you have them.


Well, first of all, you need to re-read what I wrote that you actually quoted just before your statement:



> If anyone can cite me one single solitary reasonable example of what Christ ever did or said that would *make the actions of that school board reflect Christ*


I was not talking at all about Christ "endorsing" homosexuality, I was talking about the actions of the school board. Your statement reflects just how you are completely missing the whole point. This is not about endorsement, or some kind of gay recruitment that homophobic people like the ones at the school board and yourself think this is about. 

The rainbow flag is not about indoctrination, no one is trying to _promote_ homosexuality or get recruitment of little straight girls and boys to switch teams. 

The rainbow is meant to be a symbol of diversity and *inclusiveness*. The reason it's an issue that needs to be talked about in schools is that there are millions of people in Canada and the US and across the world who are born gay, lesbian or transgendered. For decades, this group of people has been bullied, teased, discriminated, abused... you name it. There are many gay and lesbian kids who go to Catholic schools, who are living a tormented life. Who live in utter debilitating fear that they will "go to hell" for being the way they were born. 

When homophobic christians cite reasons against homosexuality, they always quote from the old testament, from Leviticus. That's the only place that specifically mentions it. Or does it... (See below) Leviticus also mentions people should be stoned if they curse their parents. It also talks about old laws about cutting the sides of your hair or beard. Gives laws about not eating swine etc... 

Jesus came to fulfill the law. Like the story of the adulterer in John 8:



> Jesus went across to Mount Olives, but he was soon back in the Temple again. Swarms of people came to him. He sat down and taught them. The religion scholars and Pharisees (Or school-boards) led in a woman who had been caught in an act of adultery. They stood her in plain sight of everyone and said, "Teacher, this woman was caught red-handed in the act of adultery. Moses, in the Law, gives orders to stone such persons. What do you say?" They were trying to trap him into saying something incriminating so they could bring charges against him.
> 
> Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger in the dirt. They kept at him, badgering him. He straightened up and said, "The sinless one among you, go first: Throw the stone."


It's very ironic that the passage you quoted from Matthew 19 where Jesus was talking about marriage and divorce and it was another example of the Pharisees again trying to test Jesus and catch him with the old laws. Here is the whole passage and a very important part Jesus talks about, where it maybe the only time he talks about homosexuality:



> When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
> Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
> 
> (Part you quoted) “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
> ...


Typically a eunuch is defined as a castrated male. This is incorrect. Castration means to remove the testicles (that were already there) or emasculate. If all eunuchs were castrated males then why would Jesus say that "some were born that way?" A eunuch is a man who has no desire or ability to have sexual relations with a woman. These men were commonly used to protect the harems back then. 

The definition of eunuch is key...

If you look in the glossary of many Bibles, it defines "eunuch" as "chamberlain, official." 

Eunuchs were men who didn't have sex with women and, or couldn't reproduce, who were therefore considered safe to be around women in a harem. Since they had no children, they had no vested interest in leaving a fortune to the next generation so they could be employed in government and civil service because they had no reason to be crooked or seek advantage for their own sons. 

Eunuchs were sometimes men who'd been castrated in order to serve in these functions. That's the "eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men."

Eunuchs were also men who just didn't look very masculine, who weren't interested in marrying or having sex with women. Eunuchs included men who were obviously what we'd today call homosexual. Those clearly are the ones who Jesus referred to as "eunuchs who were born that way".

Jesus addressed three types of eunuchs.

1. Those born that way. (People who are born gay.)

2. Those made that way by men. (Those castrated or those sexually abused people who choose to be gay as a result of this abuse rather than because it is their natural sexual affinity.)

3. Those who elect not to have a sexual relationship for the sake of the kingdom. (For example a priest or nun. This group makes the decision on their own.)

So here, Jesus states that not everyone will marry according to the custom as in male and female.

Regarding other things that Jesus said that would be in reference to the actions of the school board *banning a rainbow *that would not reflect Christ:

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Luke 6)


It's absolutely shameful what the school board is doing, banning rainbows, not allowing anti-bullying literature or literature with basic sexual education. (Even though Catholic High-schools in Ontario have extremely high rates of sexual activity)

Thankfully, it doesn't look like the students will be deterred and idiotic decisions like this will only bring more attention to the issue.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Why is it silly? They get paid from our taxes, they are not paid by private funds as would be the case if they taught at a private school.


it is silly because you're implying that the teachers do not own the money they are paid. once that money is paid to them it ceases to be public money.

does any teacher have the right to make a political donation on their own behalf? if you claim it's public money, does that mean they no longer have a say in their own interests? 

if a teacher goes out and buys a pack a cigs, he/she is buying it, not the government. it doesn't mean the government endorses smoking.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Now available...But...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> it is silly because you're implying that the teachers do not own the money they are paid. once that money is paid to them it ceases to be public money.
> 
> does any teacher have the right to make a political donation on their own behalf? if you claim it's public money, does that mean they no longer have a say in their own interests?
> 
> if a teacher goes out and buys a pack a cigs, he/she is buying it, not the government. it doesn't mean the government endorses smoking.


Ruige, follow my line for a bit...a teacher get's paid with public money for services rendered, the money is their own and well earned. No question about that and they are free to do with it as they please.

Now, in order to be a public school teacher they have no choice but to join a union, and have no choice but to pay dues. They are not free to opt out, therefore that money is not theirs to do with as they please as they have no control over it. The union is there to negotiate with the province, to protect the bargaining unit and to administer the pensions.

They are now crossing the line by forcibly taking political contributions from ALL members regardless of their wishes. They are affecting the quality of our children's education by asking teachers to take leaves to participate in political canvassing during the crucial first term. 

I'm tired of my tax dollars slated to educate our kids going to bigots in the Catholic system and to radicals in the public system. Where the f*** are their priorities?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Now, in order to be a public school teacher they have no choice but to join a union, and have no choice but to pay dues. They are not free to opt out, therefore that money is not theirs to do with as they please as they have no control over it.


Are there *any* unions out there that let you opt out of joining a union if you're part of that work force? I'm not aware of any.



kps said:


> The union is there to negotiate with the province, to protect the bargaining unit and to administer the pensions.


Their role is greater than that. In fact, I'd summarize their role as "looking out for the interests of their members". If they judge that a certain political party's policies are against the interest of their members, then they have every right to look after their own self interests by whatever means necessary, including campaigning for other political parties. Unions have always been used to mobilize voters. this isn't anything new.



kps said:


> I'm tired of my tax dollars slated to educate our kids going to bigots in the Catholic system and to radicals in the public system. Where the f*** are their priorities?


I agree with your first point, but not with your second since it's not "our" tax dollars in the teachers union. I think you're arguing a different issue - should there be unions in the public sector - (which we probably disagree on as well...haha) but really should be covered in a different thread as to not derail this one.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

kps said:


> Why is it silly? They get paid from our taxes, they are not paid by private funds as would be the case if they taught at a private school.


Such a BS argument. I am a teacher and I am beholden to you because I get paid from the money you pay in taxes. Well, my friend, if you are not a teacher, then you get paid from my after-tax money. Same difference.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> Are there *any* unions out there that let you opt out of joining a union if you're part of that work force? I'm not aware of any.


neither am I...




> Their role is greater than that. In fact, I'd summarize their role as "looking out for the interests of their members". If they judge that a certain political party's policies are against the interest of their members, then they have every right to look after their own self interests by whatever means necessary, including campaigning for other political parties. Unions have always been used to mobilize voters. this isn't anything new.


True but how many force you?



> I agree with your first point, but not with your second since it's not "our" tax dollars in the teachers union. I think you're arguing a different issue - should there be unions in the public sector - (which we probably disagree on as well...haha) but really should be covered in a different thread as to not derail this one.


So, who's tax dollars are they?


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> True but how many force you?


i don't think they forced anyone to campaign for the libs or ndp. i guess they extracted an extra fee to cover the extra costs of the program. I see this as an internal matter in the teacher's union. if enough of them were against it I'm sure they wouldn't be able to do it.



kps said:


> So, who's tax dollars are they?


no ones. it's dollars paid to their union by the teachers. It stopped being our tax dollars the instant it was paid to the teachers.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Such a BS argument. I am a teacher and I am beholden to you because I get paid from the money you pay in taxes. Well, my friend, if you are not a teacher, then you get paid from my after-tax money. Same difference.


I knew I'd get a rise out of at least one teacher. lol

Nah, I don't expect you to be "beholden" to me or any of the other wealth creating workers out there who pay taxes. You teachers at least provide a valuable service in educating our young people.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i don't think they forced anyone to campaign for the libs or ndp. i guess they extracted an extra fee to cover the extra costs of the program. I see this as an internal matter in the teacher's union. if enough of them were against it I'm sure they wouldn't be able to do it.


Do you think it's fair for a union which supposedly has your best interest at heart take your money forcibly? What if you do not support the anti Hudak campaign?

The word is that dissenters are ostracized and threatened, do you approve of that?

Hudak hasn't been elected yet, how do they know his government would't be in the union's best interest? After all he's promising to increase the edu budget.



> no ones. it's dollars paid to their union by the teachers. It stopped being our tax dollars the instant it was paid to the teachers.


But it wasn't paid to the teachers...it was taken from them. (on this point we may end up going around in circles lol)


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> Do you think it's fair for a union which supposedly has your best interest at heart take your money forcibly? What if you do not support the anti Hudak campaign?


i view unions as little democracies. there is an election process, and the winner(s) gets to make the policies for the larger collective.

Just as i do not want my tax dollars used by Harper to buy the f-35s, or build super jails, that (unfortunately) is the price i have to pay by being part of Canada. So it is the same for a teacher who supports Hudak in the teachers union. His money will be going to policies that he may not support. The only remedy is to find other likeminded teachers and try to convince others to your point of view at the next election. That is the price that teacher must pay if he/she wants to be a teacher. (and btw the teachers union seems to have done pretty well in general for their members...so take the good with the bad).



kps said:


> The word is that dissenters are ostracized and threatened, do you approve of that?


of course not. no one should. i believe in the freedom to hold & voice your own opinion. by the same token others have the freedom to express theirs, but no one should be threatened.



kps said:


> Hudak hasn't been elected yet, how do they know his government would't be in the union's best interest? After all he's promising to increase the edu budget.


Hudek's "changebook" has already indicated a lot of policies that would threaten Unions. Plus anyone just needs to look at conservative agenda for the last few decades to see that it's anti-union. You reap what you sow.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> i view unions as little democracies. there is an election process, and the winner(s) gets to make the policies for the larger collective.
> 
> Just as i do not want my tax dollars used by Harper to buy the f-35s, or build super jails, that (unfortunately) is the price i have to pay by being part of Canada. So it is the same for a teacher who supports Hudak in the teachers union. His money will be going to policies that he may not support. The only remedy is to find other likeminded teachers and try to convince others to your point of view at the next election. That is the price that teacher must pay if he/she wants to be a teacher. (and btw the teachers union seems to have done pretty well in general for their members...so take the good with the bad).


I wouldn't go as far as compare a state government to a union, but in essence you are correct and I won't argue the point further. Just keep in mind that not all those teachers who object to this are Tory supporters.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

kps said:


> I knew I'd get a rise out of at least one teacher. lol
> 
> Nah, I don't expect you to be "beholden" to me or any of the other wealth creating workers out there who pay taxes. You teachers at least provide a valuable service in educating our young people.


Such a kind and thoughtful response. I'm impressed. :clap:

In any event, I can certainly think of a great many ways my tax dollars are spent on things that I certainly do not support as an individual tax paper, and it seems the higher the level of government, the greater the amount of mis-spending.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Such a kind and thoughtful response. I'm impressed. :clap:
> 
> In any event, I can certainly think of a great many ways my tax dollars are spent on things that I certainly do not support as an individual tax paper, and it seems the higher the level of government, the greater the amount of mis-spending.


Your sarcasm is duly noted...:lmao:

Did you expect any less (or more) after calling my argument BS?

How's this for a BS argument: 

Your tax dollars are just my tax dollars being recirculated back into the system. Your spending is just my tax dollars coming back to me on which I have to pay more taxes to continually support you and all the other public union workers. Public service workers do not create wealth...they consume it and it's a greater portion than what they give back in services. The military, police and fire exempt.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Excellent take on unions in general there, kps. :clap:


----------



## MX-V (Feb 2, 2010)

ehMax said:


> Well, first of all, you need to re-read what I wrote that you actually quoted just before your statement:[...]


Wow, great reply.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Your sarcasm is duly noted...:lmao:
> 
> Did you expect any less (or more) after calling my argument BS?
> 
> ...


I was laughing my guts out the other day when I heard a U.S. economist claiming that laying off government workers was "a drag on the economy." Nope. It generally takes a load off.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I was laughing my guts out the other day when I heard a U.S. economist claiming that laying off government workers was "a drag on the economy." Nope. It generally takes a load off.


He must have gone to the same economics school as Miller. Miller increased the city payroll by 10,000. Our buddy McGuinty has increased the public sector by 70% since taking office. Pretty soon we'll all work for the government and we all know how that panned out in Soviet Russia and the east bloc.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kps said:


> He must have gone to the same economics school as Miller. Miller increased the city payroll by 10,000. Our buddy McGuinty has increased the public sector by 70% since taking office. Pretty soon we'll all work for the government and we all know how that panned out in Soviet Russia and the east bloc.


I see you forgot to mention Harper growing the federal government by 25%.

congrats to the cons for turning this into an anti-union thread. echo-chamber in full effect!

well done!:clap:


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

kps said:


> Your sarcasm is duly noted...:lmao:
> 
> Did you expect any less (or more) after calling my argument BS?
> 
> ...


Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. And yep, same old narrow-minded BS I've heard before. I pay taxes just like you do. Maybe more even.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

ehMax said:


> When homophobic christians cite reasons against homosexuality, they always quote from the old testament, from Leviticus. That's the only place that specifically mentions it. Or does it... (See below) Leviticus also mentions people should be stoned if they curse their parents. It also talks about old laws about cutting the sides of your hair or beard. Gives laws about not eating swine etc...
> 
> Jesus came to replace the law. Like the story of the adulterer in John 8:


Sorry, I just want to get this straight. The christian god talked to a mortal man (Moses) and told him exactly what he wanted Moses to do.. He then sends his "son" to earth to be born of a mortal woman and his "son" tells everyone to forget what GOD said, and to do what HE says.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

i-rui said:


> I see you forgot to mention Harper growing the federal government by 25%.
> 
> congrats to the cons for turning this into an anti-union thread. echo-chamber in full effect!
> 
> well done!:clap:


It seems to permeate many threads. I guess they're getting to them.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

ehMax said:


> The rainbow is meant to be a symbol of diversity and *inclusiveness*. The reason it's an issue that needs to be talked about in schools is that there are millions of people in Canada and the US and across the world who are born gay, lesbian or transgendered. For decades, this group of people has been bullied, teased, discriminated, abused... you name it. There are many gay and lesbian kids who go to Catholic schools, who are living a tormented life. Who live in utter debilitating fear that they will "go to hell" for being the way they were born.


:clap:

As always, well-intentioned people will try to be reasonable and helpful to their fellow humans. Unfortunately, the Church makes it difficult.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

imnothng said:


> Sorry, I just want to get this straight. The christian god talked to a mortal man (Moses) and told him exactly what he wanted Moses to do.. He then sends his "son" to earth to be born of a mortal woman and his "son" tells everyone to forget what GOD said, and to do what HE says.


:lmao:

You're right, of course. But don't go expecting logic or even accurate reflections of factual reality from religion.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. And yep, same old narrow-minded BS I've heard before. I pay taxes just like you do. Maybe more even.


Eliminate your salary entirely, and I'll forego the taxes. I know that's big of me, but...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

i-rui said:


> I see you forgot to mention Harper growing the federal government by 25%.
> 
> congrats to the cons for turning this into an anti-union thread. echo-chamber in full effect!
> 
> well done!:clap:


Yeah sorry, we should have just left it as an anti religion thread.

Operative word...publicly funded...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

kps said:


> Yeah sorry, we should have just left it as an anti religion thread.
> 
> Operative word...publicly funded...


Exactly. The public funding aspect completely changes the nature of the situation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> :lmao:
> 
> You're right, of course. But don't go expecting logic or even accurate reflections of factual reality from religion.


If we can't expect it from, oh, say, climate scientists... why should we expect it from religion?


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. And yep, same old narrow-minded BS I've heard before. I pay taxes just like you do. Maybe more even.


Oh? In that case I'll take some of it back...but not all of it.

As a side note, in years past we were always asked during census which school board one supports....I've always checked public.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> Yeah sorry, we should have just left it as an anti religion thread.


Anti Catholic.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Not sure about the current situation but I believe in bygone years Calgary Catholics paid higher property taxes to help support their separate school system. Was neither a Catholic nor a property owner in those days so I cannot be certain.

This was partly due to the inane policy of building a Catholic school next door to every public school, even though the Catholics had a much smaller population. Somewhere between the 60s and the 80s that policy was abandoned.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

kps said:


> Oh? In that case I'll take some of it back...but not all of it.
> 
> As a side note, in years past we were always asked during census which school board one supports....I've always checked public.


Here in Alberta it doesn't really matter which box you check because it all goes into general revenue anyway. On top of that, school boards no longer have the power to increase or decrease educational taxes anymore. That makes the province essentially the sole bargainer in money matters, and they base educational funding on how the oil industry is doing. It's the Alberta Advantage!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Good response Ehmax

Lets get one thing straight first. I agree that no one attracted to the same sex should be teased, bullied or harmed by others because of that fact and this is a principle that should be taught to all children. God calls us to love all sinners but that does't require validating the behaviour.

I stand corrected, you didn't claim scripture endorses homosexuality, however from a Christian perspective, the whole issue of whether we should be promoting homosexual sex to children as something wholesome, natural and worthy of celebration and investigation hinges on what the scriptures say on the matter and what basic human biology tells us. If it is a sin (as Catholic teaching and scripture clearly state it is), presenting it as a viable, moral and healthy activity to school children would be just as scandalous as hosting adultery or fornication pride week. Its obviously going against the design of the human body to engage in gay sex.



> The rainbow flag is not about indoctrination, no one is trying to _promote_ homosexuality or get recruitment of little straight girls and boys to switch teams.


I don't agree, its clearly a step forward for indoctrination.
I'm not arguing its about recruitment but acceptance of the behaviour and silencing any moral or religious objection to it. That said I'm not convinced straight girls and boys can't be swayed by a culture that promotes it. I think sexual behaviour is strongly influenced by our environment. History shows that the prevalence of homosexual activity rises and falls with the sexual norms of the day. Ancient Greece comes to mind. We certainly see it rising in our culture today.



> The rainbow is meant to be a symbol of diversity and *inclusiveness*.


I'd say its more about diversity of sexual activity and *acceptance* of it. Acceptance and inclusiveness are two different things since you can include someone that engages in behaviour you may not necessarily accept. As christians, the only sexual expression we are to accept is sex between a married man and woman. Anything outside of that is sinful. The bible is pretty clear on that.



> The reason it's an issue that needs to be talked about in schools is that there are millions of people in Canada and the US and across the world who are born gay, lesbian or transgendered. For decades, this group of people has been bullied, teased, discriminated, abused... you name it. There are many gay and lesbian kids who go to Catholic schools, who are living a tormented life. Who live in utter debilitating fear that they will "go to hell" for being the way they were born.


I don't necessarily agree people are born gay though I'm open to the possibility that they could be. Certainly twin studies have suggested thats not the case. I agree that NO person should be bullied, teased or abused because they're attracted to the same sex. Nor should they be treated this way because they're fat, skinny, ugly handycapped, simple, poor, sickly, ethnic or any number of other reasons children and adults are living a tormented life no better than some gay kids. In fact I think you stand a better chance of not being bullied as a homosexual these days than some of the people I mentioned above. There's really no pink triangles, rainbow flags or pride weeks for fat kids or ugly kids yet suicide and depression is no less a problem for them.



> When homophobic christians cite reasons against homosexuality, they always quote from the old testament, from Leviticus. That's the only place that specifically mentions it.


No thats simply not true.
(Rom. 1:26-27), (I Cor. 6:9-10), (1Timothy 1:10) (Deuteronomy 22:25) The fact these verses exist throws a wrench into the theory that Leviticus is simply wrong and that Eunich=Gay and that somehow equates to a biblical endorsement of homosexual sex.



> Or does it... (See below) Leviticus also mentions people should be stoned if they curse their parents. It also talks about old laws about cutting the sides of your hair or beard. Gives laws about not eating swine etc... Jesus came to replace the law. Like the story of the adulterer in John 8:


In John 8, it is true that he was replacing the law but it didn't change the status of adultery being sinful. He didn't condemn the woman to death but he did tell her to sin no more.

If logic dictates that the condemnation of homosexual activity gets a pass in Leviticus because of silly laws on grooming and food consumption existing in the same book, I suppose the sinful status of incest, bestiality, adultery, idol worship and a whole slew of other offences in the same book are also irrelevant?



> “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
> “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Luke 6)


Seeing that we're not supposed to judge or condemn, I suppose this thread should have never been started by someone claiming to adhere to this principle. What is this thread other than a judgement and condemnation of Catholics. The verse you sited was not a prohibition on judgement but hypocritical or uncharitable judgement. The bible tells us in other verses that we are to make right judgements. (John 7:24) 



> It's absolutely shameful what the school board is doing, banning rainbows, not allowing anti-bullying literature or literature with basic sexual education. (Even though Catholic High-schools in Ontario have extremely high rates of sexual activity)


You have no idea what goes on in a Catholic school as do many others posting here. My kids have had numerous anti-bullying presentations and lessons in the school but its not exclusively targeted to gays since they're clearly not the only group affected by the issue. In fact I'd say they're a small percentage of the people bullied. They've also been learning about sex since grade 2 or 3 which is totally unnecessary at such an early age in my opinion. 
Since Public Schools are doing just what you think needs to happen in the Catholic Schools, is bullying less an issue there? Are public schools safer? Are the students less sexually active with fewer teen moms and/or abortions?



> Thankfully, it doesn't look like the students will be deterred and idiotic decisions like this will only bring more attention to the issue.


Of course not. Thats because their moral compass is more strongly influenced by the world than the teachings of Christ.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Exactly. The public funding aspect completely changes the nature of the situation.


I've often wondered why the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, (let alone the Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons) etc. don't take the government to court and demand separate school systems. Why should the Catholics get special treatment?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> I've often wondered why the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, (let alone the Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons) etc. don't take the government to court and demand separate school systems. Why should the Catholics get special treatment?


I agree! In fact I think everyone should be able to choose the school they want that meets a set standard. Privatize all schools and let them compete for the government funding attached to each child. Works great in some European countries.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Lets get one thing straight first. I agree that no one attracted to the same sex should be teased, bullied or harmed by others because of that fact and this is a principle that should be taught to all children.


:clap:

Let me start, then, by saying that whatever other disagreement we may have is not really important.



> from a Christian perspective, the whole issue of whether we should be promoting homosexual sex to children as something wholesome, natural and worthy of celebration and investigation hinges on what the scriptures say on the matter and what basic human biology tells us.


Well, I don't really think we need to be promoting any sort of sex; it does a fine job of promoting itself. What we _do_ need to do is ensure that kids know enough about the biology that their natural experimentation doesn't get them into trouble or damage their health.



> Its obviously going against the design of the human body to engage in gay sex.



Tell that to the monkeys, whales, apes, dogs, and humans that enjoy/engage in homosexual activities.



> History shows that the *openness* of homosexual activity rises and falls with the sexual norms of the day.


T,FTFY.



> As christians, the only sexual expression we are to accept is sex between a married man and woman. Anything outside of that is sinful.


Sucks to be you 



> I don't necessarily agree people are born gay though I'm open to the possibility that they could be. Certainly twin studies have suggested thats not the case.


It's good that you're open minded about it. Seriously. Because the evidence is pretty compelling, and it'd be a drag to have science slap your bronze-age dogma in the face yet again.



> If logic dictates that the condemnation of homosexual activity gets a pass in Leviticus because of silly laws on grooming and food consumption existing in the same book, I suppose the sinful status of incest, bestiality, adultery, idol worship and a whole slew of other offences in the same book are also irrelevant?


Well, it follows that the Bible isn't very reliable, and that one should make moral judgements on the basis of better reasoning than what some bronze-age mystics thought about it.



> You have no idea what goes on in a Catholic school as do many others posting here.


This thread is based on a blog post stating that a specific Catholic school was banning rainbow symbols and sex-ed literature. I'd love to be informed that this posting was in error, and all the outrage was over a false alarm, but if this is true, what more does anyone need to know?



> Are public schools safer? Are the students less sexually active with fewer teen moms and/or abortions? Of course not. Thats because their moral compass is more strongly influenced by the world than the teachings of Christ.


Well, anecdotally, when I was in High School most of my friends were in the Catholic School system (I played in the Catholic School's All City Band). They were certainly no less sexually active (or stoned, drunk, etc.) than the kids in the public schools, but then, almost none of them actually believed in God either. Kids go to the schools their parents want them to, and the Catholic schools have a lot more dollars/student, so they're generally better schools. I'd love to see some actual statistics on this, but the only ones I can find are for the US, and they just show that kids from strict religious backgrounds that prevent sex-ed wind up more likely to be pregnant as teens (as if that's any surprise).


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> It's good that you're open minded about it. Seriously. Because the evidence is pretty compelling, and it'd be a drag to have science slap your bronze-age dogma in the face yet again.


:lmao: :clap:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> \It's good that you're open minded about it. Seriously. Because the evidence is pretty compelling, and it'd be a drag...


Drag queen?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Do Catholic School cafeterias serve pork?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jfpoole said:


> Do Catholic School cafeterias serve pork?


Only on Fridays. I think you're thinking of Jewish schools.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> I've often wondered why the Muslims, Hindus, Jews, (let alone the Baptists, Presbyterians, Mormons) etc. don't take the government to court and demand separate school systems. Why should the Catholics get special treatment?


Time to go back and relearn your grade 7 Social Studies concerning the events leading up to Confederation back in 1867, in particular the compromises between Canada East (Lower Canada) and Canada West (Upper Canada).


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Time to go back and relearn your grade 7 Social Studies concerning the events leading up to Confederation back in 1867, in particular the compromises between Canada East (Lower Canada) and Canada West (Upper Canada).


Time to amend the constitution then, this isn't the 18th century any more. I'd like to see the public system entirely devoid of any religious influence.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Only on Fridays. I think you're thinking of Jewish schools.


Well, the Bible says that pork is unclean and not fit for consumption, so Catholic schools shouldn't serve pork, right?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

jfpoole said:


> Well, the Bible says that pork is unclean and not fit for consumption, so Catholic schools shouldn't serve pork, right?


Again, that would be the Old Testament, which is the Jewish part. Seriously, they have Wikipedia for these sorts of questions.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

jfpoole said:


> Well, the Bible says that pork is unclean and not fit for consumption, so Catholic schools shouldn't serve pork, right?


Kosher laws as written in the Torah state that a jew may only eat animals that chew cud and have a cloven hoof, this rules the pig and camel out, but it doesn't say anything about unclean or not fit for consumption. Jews aren't allowed to eat lobster and other shellfish either...too bad. You keeping kosher these days, jf?


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Time to go back and relearn your grade 7 Social Studies concerning the events leading up to Confederation back in 1867, in particular the compromises between Canada East (Lower Canada) and Canada West (Upper Canada).


Ontario Catholicism getting a free ride in the education system had little to do with 1867 and more to do with shameless vote getting by Bill Davis over 100 years later.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Time to go back and relearn your grade 7 Social Studies concerning the events leading up to Confederation back in 1867


Huh. I don't think I ever learned this. Maybe I should've gone to a Catholic school


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

bryanc said:


> Huh. I don't think I ever learned this. Maybe I should've gone to a Catholic school


That's because the statement is incomplete. 1867 saw Protestant Canada West become Ontario while Catholic Canada East became Quebec. Freedom of religion was enshrined in the constitution. Catholic school public funding did not happen for another 100 years in a bid of shameless vote buying by the Premier Davis.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hello Bryan

To be honest, I have no interest in your opinions on matters of faith since you're clearly on the other team and beyond your area of expertise but I thought you of all people would have a better understanding of the differences in design and purpose of the reproductive system vs the digestive system and the heightened health risks associated with attempting to cross the two due to their incompatibility. That is the basis of my argument that it goes against nature.
Yes animals have been observed engaging in what appears to be homosexual sex in the wild but they've also been seen attempting sex with other species, engaging in rape, incest, eating their young, sex between adults and juveniles, Necrophilia to name a few. Holding animal behaviour up as a guide for what is acceptable and natural behaviour for humans isn't a very compelling argument.

And yes it does suck to be me. Limiting sex to a single woman inside a marriage means you miss out on a whole bunch of fun stuff. Like Chlamydia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Genital Herpes, HPV, Hepatitis B or HIV and too many other fun things to mention. You also miss out on an opportunity to make an appearance on Maury Povich's Paternity Test Season finally, experience the joys of single parenting or finding out you've fathered a child to one of last months sexual conquests whose name you've already forgotten. I know you guys are busy trying to plug the holes in that sinking ship with chewing gum and I wish you luck.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2011)

MacGuiver said:


> Hello Bryan
> 
> To be honest, I have no interest in your opinions on matters of faith since you're clearly on the other team and beyond your area of expertise but I thought you of all people would have a better understanding of the differences in design and purpose of the reproductive system vs the digestive system and the heightened health risks associated with attempting to cross the two due to their incompatibility. That is the basis of my argument that it goes against nature.
> Yes animals have been observed engaging in *what appears to be homosexual sex* in the wild but they've also been seen attempting sex with other species, engaging in rape, incest, eating their young, sex between adults and juveniles, Necrophilia to name a few. Holding animal behaviour up as a guide for what is acceptable and natural behaviour for humans isn't a very compelling argument.
> ...


Oh how sadly misinformed you are. I do truly pity you now if you truly believe everything you stated above. Some animals most certainly do more than have "what appears to be homosexual sex" (and the same such animals are actually fairly close in the evolutionary chain to man -- oh wait, you might have to google evolution to understand that one  ). If you are unable or unwilling to look up those facts and want to remain delusional go ahead, but please stop providing incorrect information here as a defence.

Lastly if you think that limiting sex to a single woman inside a marriage is a means to "prevent" all of the diseases you are listing, then once again I pity you and urge you to take your head out of the pages of your bible for a few minutes and do a bit of research to back up this claim as well. Of everything you listed there I believe there is only a single disease that can not be transmitted aside from sexual contact.

I'm not so sorry to say that it seems to be _your_ ship sinking that is being plugged with bubble gum, propaganda and mis-information that's been force fed to you from a work of fiction ... possibly the greatest hoodwink of all time in fact.

There, I feel better now. Maybe I do need to participate in these religious discussions more often


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

mguertin said:


> Oh how sadly misinformed you are. I do truly pity you now if you truly believe everything you stated above. Some animals most certainly do more than have "what appears to be homosexual sex" (and the same such animals are actually fairly close in the evolutionary chain to man -- oh wait, you might have to google evolution to understand that one  ). If you are unable or unwilling to look up those facts and want to remain delusional go ahead, but please stop providing incorrect information here as a defence.
> 
> Lastly if you think that limiting sex to a single woman inside a marriage is a means to "prevent" all of the diseases you are listing, then once again I pity you and urge you to take your head out of the pages of your bible for a few minutes and do a bit of research to back up this claim as well. Of everything you listed there I believe there is only a single disease that can not be transmitted aside from sexual contact.
> 
> ...


+1. Of course comparing species isn't valid for you as you probably dismiss evolution and believe in a value system that places **** sapiens as fully superiour animals in a biodiverse ecosystem.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> I have no interest in your opinions on matters of faith since you're clearly on the other team and beyond your area of expertise


I've studied philosophy and psychology fairly extensively, and think I have a fairly sophisticated understanding of faith, but these are disagreements that are less subject to empirical evidence, and therefore hard to settle when arguing with someone who does not accept reason or logic.



> but I thought you of all people would have a better understanding of the differences in design and purpose of the reproductive system vs the digestive system


You lost me at "design and purpose." Nothing in nature has design or purpose. That's sort of the whole point of evolution. Whatever works best succeeds.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> You lost me at "design and purpose." *Nothing in nature has design or purpose*. That's sort of the whole point of evolution. Whatever works best succeeds.


Well that is up for debate, some scientists such as yourself adhear to this line while many, many other disagree strongly. 

It depends on how you define "design". If it is a matter that by "design" one means some sort of creator "intelligence" was involved or if you believe that the universe just is and as such it has an intrinsic design based on its own internal laws stemming from that state of existence.

Personally I believe that the universe does have design as it is in evidence in everything around us, I do not believe that it however stems from a creator.

Let's also put it this way, if the universe just is and at the time of the big bang contained everything that ever could or would be, including ourselves and we as human beings have the concept of purpose and make things that serve a purpose, purpose must be a part of the universe and nature or at least human nature (not to mention other species demonstrate the ability to use things in their environment to serve their purposes) because we are part of/in nature.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I think these type of arguments serve little purpose. One either has or does not have faith in their religion...even if it is a religion of not having one. To me, having a faith is a personal matter and one that should not be dragged into the public and by extension political arena. I personally believe than man has this need to understand and know ... it has often been said what separates us from other species is the fact that we know we know. As we have this need to know, we ask questions and create answers...some individuals find their answers in religion, other believe that religion was created to answer quesitons we can't as yet answer. Many things we take for granted today due to scientific thought and discover were considered witchcraft not too long ago, and thus anti-religion. What is known is that all religions are forms of social guidance. But social guidance does not mean that that guidance is a right. We all can identify what basic human rights are, or should be....it's only when we introduce the so-called religious teachings or guidance that we seem to have issues. For me I can accept there are things I don't understand, or more important, maybe I should never understand. I also can accept that some beleive the answers lie in belief of a deity....lord knows the world has plenty of those to choose. But what I can't understand or abide is the constant imposition of dogma by moral this and than on an individuals human rights...to do so is to create privilege, and we know what happens in the long run with that, history has shown more upheavel as privilege is the bastion of oppression in my opinion. Having said all this, religions are like joining a club or league....they have certain rules which are required to maintain membership...so, if you join, you abide by the rules, if you don't like the rules leave. For those of us who don't like the rules, don't join, but don't critise those who do and are willing to follow. The only exception would be when the club or league tries to impose its will on the non members.............


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> It depends on how you define "design". If it is a matter that by "design" one means some sort of creator "intelligence" was involved or if you believe that the universe just is and as such it has an intrinsic design based on its own internal laws stemming from that state of existence.


This is a semantic argument (which is not to say that it's not worth discussing, but that it is fundamentally a disagreement about the meaning of the word 'design.')



> Personally I believe that the universe does have design as it is in evidence in everything around us, I do not believe that it however stems from a creator.


You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. And depending on what you mean by 'design', it sounds like we may not be far apart in our beliefs. However, 'design' strongly implies intent, and, as far as anyone has been able to demonstrate empirically, the complex order that we observe arising in nature does so without any intent or purpose. Rather the properties of matter and energy are such that emergent complexities arise spontaneously, and one of the properties of complex systems is evolution.

People are free to attribute these phenomena to whatever supernatural entities they like if they choose. But for the rational observer, such beliefs are not an option, because the data can be better explained by a simpler paradigm.

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> I've studied philosophy and psychology fairly extensively, and think I have a fairly sophisticated understanding of faith, but these are disagreements that are less subject to empirical evidence, and therefore hard to settle when arguing with someone who does not accept reason or logic.


Yes you've got all Richard Dawkins talking points on faith on the tip of your tongue. Your reason and logic is brilliant I might ad. If dogs and monkeys are doing it, so should we.



> You lost me at "design and purpose." Nothing in nature has design or purpose. That's sort of the whole point of evolution. Whatever works best succeeds.


I knew I would loose you there, which is why discussing Christian theology with you is an exercise in futility. Truth be told, the theory of evolution poses no conflict with my faith whatsoever. It could be the mechanism God chose to create everything. A literal biblical creation isn't even a Catholic teaching so when someone brings it up in an argument against a Catholic, they only expose their theological ignorance. In fact it was a Catholic Priest that first proposed the Big Bang Theory. Regarding evolution, heterosexual monogamy seems to be the clear winner.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## minstrel (Sep 9, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> That's because the statement is incomplete. 1867 saw Protestant Canada West become Ontario while Catholic Canada East became Quebec. Freedom of religion was enshrined in the constitution. Catholic school public funding did not happen for another 100 years in a bid of shameless vote buying by the Premier Davis.


 Actually, Catholic elementary schools were publicly funded from 1867. It was only the extension of this to grades 11 through OAC (so called "full funding") that the Davis government used to buy votes over 100 years later.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> One either has or does not have faith in their religion...even if it is a religion of not having one.


Is that like having a hobby of not collecting stamps?



> I personally believe than man has this need to understand and know


I concur. This is fundamentally why I do science.



> it has often been said what separates us from other species is the fact that we know we know.


And it has often been asked of people who say such things, "how do you know other species do not have this characteristic?"



> Many things we take for granted today due to scientific thought and discover were considered witchcraft not too long ago, and thus anti-religion.


I'm not quite sure I'm parsing that sentence correctly, but if what you're saying is that science is anti-religion, I agree.



> What is known is that all religions are forms of social guidance.


Some people think this, but I wouldn't say it's 'known.' I'd certainly agree that organized religion evolved as a form of social control.



> We all can identify what basic human rights are, or should be.


I know about a dozen professors of philosophy who'd beg to differ. What's a 'obvious' basic human right has changed radically in the past few hundred years. And that's not even considering non-western cultures. But I take your point; we all have an intuitive grasp on what human rights are. My point is that this is a cultural phenomenon, and isn't even that consistent within individuals of any given culture when you start examining it closely. Many philosophers have grappled extensively with the problem of trying to decide on what, if any *principles* underly such 'rights', in the hopes of coming up with a more logically coherent means of establishing what they are. It's a very big topic.



> ...it's only when we introduce the so-called religious teachings or guidance that we seem to have issues.


I agree that religion adds complexity (without adding any clarity) to an already complex subject.



> For me I can accept there are things I don't understand


As any rational agent must.



> ... or more important, maybe I should never understand.


...hmmm... not sue I'm with you on this one. But I've often heard 'faith' defined as "not wanting to know what's true", so you may be on to something there.



> But what I can't understand or abide is the constant imposition of dogma


:clap:

Amen, brother!!



> Having said all this, religions are like joining a club or league....they have certain rules which are required to maintain membership...so, if you join, you abide by the rules, if you don't like the rules leave.


That would seem fair. But I think it's ironic that most of the Catholics I know use birth control, and generally disagree with everything the pope says about anything. So apparently many of the members of at least some of these religions are not very strict about their interpretations of the rules.



> For those of us who don't like the rules, don't join, but don't critise those who do and are willing to follow. The only exception would be when the club or league tries to impose its will on the non members.


Which would be pretty much all the modern religions. It turns out that just following your rules and leaving other people to their own choices isn't a good way of growing your club...so it's useful to have awareness campaigns, like, say, the Crusades or flying a few planes into skyscrapers, or just having a few of your members blow themselves up in a crowed plaza. Of course the really successful clubs have figured a way to get us to pay for their clubhouses, and allow them to induct children into their clubs long before they're old enough to decide what they believe for themselves.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> If dogs and monkeys are doing it, so should we.


I make no claims about what 'should' be; simply that the claim that homosexuality is 'unnatural' or somehow biologically deviant is factually incorrect.



> Truth be told, the theory of evolution poses no conflict with my faith whatsoever. It could be the mechanism God chose to create everything.


Of course it could. It could also be the mechanism that the flying spaghetti monster chose, or one that Zeus opposed but had to allow because he lost a game of Twister with Loki and that was the bet. If you like believing in fairy tales, that's your business.



> Regarding evolution, heterosexual monogamy seems to be the clear winner.


I take it you've never studied biology. Monogamy is a rare mating system, even among primates. It is an evolutionary outlier, but it does seem to work for some organisms.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> This is a semantic argument (which is not to say that it's not worth discussing, but that it is fundamentally a disagreement about the meaning of the word 'design.')
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You fail to address the more fundamental point. How can we possess and display intent if it fails to exist in the universe? Other creatures than ourselves also display intent as well.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Again, that would be the Old Testament, which is the Jewish part.


Why do folks bring up the Old Testament when discussing this issue, then?


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

kps said:


> Kosher laws as written in the Torah state that a jew may only eat animals that chew cud and have a cloven hoof, this rules the pig and camel out, but it doesn't say anything about unclean or not fit for consumption. Jews aren't allowed to eat lobster and other shellfish either...too bad. You keeping kosher these days, jf?


Leviticus 11 mentions four particular animals of the earth (the camel, the hare, the hyrax, and the pig) as being unclean. I don't keep kosher, no.


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2011)

MacGuiver said:


> Regarding evolution, heterosexual monogamy seems to be the clear winner.


Really? How many animal species practice heterosexual monogamy? How many practice homosexual behaviour? Got some links ... the numbers might surprise you.

Oh wait .. I have links (since you don't seem to be backing up any of your arguments I thought it would be prudent to back up mine). You also seem to be ignoring any of my other arguments so I'll just let them be. Since you don't seem opposed to evolution here's a sampling of information that may raise y our eyebrows (but I'm not going to hold my breath) 

All emphasis mine:

Homosexual behavior in animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that *homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species*, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.


Monogamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The amount of social monogamy in animals varies across taxa, with over 90% of birds engaging in social monogamy but only *7% of mammals* engaging in social monogamy.



These facts tell me something important, your doctrine seems to be going directly against nature itself.


----------



## The Bridge (Jun 10, 2011)

It seems to me (and I think this was EhMax's original point) is that modern Christianity has become mired in the same religio-legalism that dominated Jewish culture in Jesus's time and which Jesus himself railed against.

Christianity is not a club that includes or excludes people based on their race, hair colour, sexual orientation, or scientific world-view.

Christianity is the active belief that an ultimate act of love has set us free from our sinful natures and that, if we let it, this act can transform us from selfish creatures into beings that can selflessly and genuinely love our neighbours. Even if those neighbours have different races, hair colours, sexual orientations, or scientific world-views.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Mguertin

I was referring to heterosexual monogamy in humans. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Again, my argument against homosexual sex being natural is based on the design of the human body. Reproductive vs Digestive systems and the inherent incompatibility of both (I'd elaborate on that but I'm sure your smart enough to figure that out) and increased risks of disease when you cross the two. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers
MacGuiver




mguertin said:


> Really? How many animal species practice heterosexual monogamy? How many practice homosexual behaviour? Got some links ... the numbers might surprise you.
> 
> Oh wait .. I have links (since you don't seem to be backing up any of your arguments I thought it would be prudent to back up mine). You also seem to be ignoring any of my other arguments so I'll just let them be. Since you don't seem opposed to evolution here's a sampling of information that may raise y our eyebrows (but I'm not going to hold my breath)
> 
> ...


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> Mguertin
> 
> I was referring to heterosexual monogamy in humans. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Again, my argument against homosexual sex being natural is based on the design of the human body. Reproductive vs Digestive systems and the inherent incompatibility of both (I'd elaborate on that but I'm sure your smart enough to figure that out) and increased risks of disease when you cross the two. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


OK, you're wrong. It only increases the risk of the disease if the disease is present in one of the two systems to being with. Irrelevant though - we all do things that increase health risks - from eating fast food to going outside without sunscreen. Who cares?

If you are going to argue what is or isn't natural, then you could argue that heterosexual monogamy in humans isn't natural. Natural would be to spread your genes as far and wide as possible - I'm sure you're smart enough to figure that out.

Preferring to eat cooked meat over raw isn't natural either. Worshipping an unseen, unproven deity is not natural either.

But what does any of this have to do with a school board that claims to follow a compassionate and tolerant deity doing exactly the opposite of what said deity preached?


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Ever seen the movie "Man who fell to earth"
Same thing, It's not just sex amongst humans that provides a connection.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

screature said:


> You fail to address the more fundamental point. How can we possess and display intent if it fails to exist in the universe? Other creatures than ourselves also display intent as well.


Still waiting....


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

hayesk said:


> But what does any of this have to do with a school board that claims to follow a compassionate and tolerant deity doing exactly the opposite of what said deity preached?


The argument is whether or not it is against their religion. In my eyes it is, because it says so in their book. But they say it isn't because a guy named Jesus said he was the son of their god and that they shouldn't listen to what their god told them to do.

And according to them, Jesus was a mortal man, not a deity. Jesus was compassionate and tolerant, his daddy wasn't.


----------



## okcomputer (Jul 18, 2005)

MacGuiver said:


> Reproductive vs Digestive systems and the inherent incompatibility of both (I'd elaborate on that but I'm sure your smart enough to figure that out) and increased risks of disease when you cross the two. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


So are you saying that homosexuals are the only ones engaging on oral and anal sex?

Are Catholics against oral sex? Now that would be sad. Haha. 

The homosexual community does have a higher rate of disease. However, that has often been attributed to the lifestyle they live. This lifestyle is born out of shame, bullying, and generally being shunned and hated. And it is events like the one in the linked article that continue to promote this attitude towards people of different sexuality. 

It really makes me shake my head when people say things like "love the sinner, hate the sin," or however you chose to put it this time around. That you feel you can look down upon people and judge them and deem them lesser because of their sexual preference is disgusting.

You certainly are one of the most confident, high and mighty Christians standing on a pedestal that I have seen in quite some time. Your way is the right and only way. Good luck with that.

The Catholic school board is grasping at straws trying to stay relevant. This decision is part PR move. Lots of people will cheer this action and feel like there are still people fighting the good fight. The good fight means alienating a huge chunk of the population and helping to instill hatred in another chunk of inpressionable youth. 

No public money should go to these schools.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Still waiting....


Sorry, got busy yesterday and didn't have time to check back on this thread.



> How can we possess and display intent if it fails to exist in the universe? Other creatures than ourselves also display intent as well.


You're obviously right. If we possess intent, then it must exist. I was sloppy with my language when I said "nothing in nature is the result of intent." What I meant was that intentionality is an emergent property of consciousness, and can therefore only exist *after* consciousness evolves in complex organisms. So it's an error of thinking to say that plants grow broad leaves with the intent of capturing sunlight or shading out competitors, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that the dog intends to get you to take him for a walk when he brings you his leash.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Sorry, got busy yesterday and didn't have time to check back on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> You're obviously right. If we possess intent, then it must exist. I was sloppy with my language when I said "nothing in nature is the result of intent." What I meant was that intentionality is an emergent property of consciousness, and can therefore only exist *after* consciousness evolves in complex organisms. So it's an error of thinking to say that plants grow broad leaves with the intent of capturing sunlight or shading out competitors, but it's perfectly reasonable to say that the dog intends to get you to take him for a walk when he brings you his leash.


Thanks.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> So are you saying that homosexuals are the only ones engaging on oral and anal sex?


No I didn't say that at all. Those activities are just as risky for heterosexuals and are no less sinful for them.



> Are Catholics against oral sex? Now that would be sad. Haha.


I believe the church is. But you're obviously not Catholic so don't be sad, have fun. However I hope you won't be laughing if you contract throat cancer. I'm sure somebody is working hard to plug that hole in the boat, maybe a throat condom.
Oral Sex Cause of Throat Cancer Rise



> The homosexual community does have a higher rate of disease. However, that has often been attributed to the lifestyle they live. This lifestyle is born out of shame, bullying, and generally being shunned and hated. And it is events like the one in the linked article that continue to promote this attitude towards people of different sexuality.


Which is it you guys, one guy is arguing that its in our nature to be promiscuous and the next guy is blaming the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle on them being victims. 
The victim theory is a bit shaky though. Some of the most promiscuous people I knew in high school and college were among the most popular kids in school. We live in a porn culture where monogamy is almost looked upon as a failure and virginity is a curse. The message is that the guys and girls that get the most sexual gratification with the most partners are the winners. I think promiscuous gays are just living the dream.



> It really makes me shake my head when people say things like "love the sinner, hate the sin," or however you chose to put it this time around.


 I'm getting the sense a lot of you hate people you would deem as "sinners" so I can see where that concept may seem foreign to you. However Christ was the perfect example of that in action. He loved sinners enough to die for them but he never condoned the sins they committed. If someone with a decent knowledge of scripture would like to argue that point I'm all ears. 



> You certainly are one of the most confident, high and mighty Christians standing on a pedestal that I have seen in quite some time. Your way is the right and only way. Good luck with that.


I just believe what Jesus said (John 14:6). Bryan mentioned many Christians he's met when you really get down to it are actually atheists and I have to agree with him on that. They're guided by the prevailing winds of the culture.

As far as being confident, high and mighty, on a pedestal, you and most posters on this forum don't feel passionate about your beliefs and convictions? Many of the atheists posting here don't believe their position and values are the right way and only way? Give me a break! Heck they start 99.9% of the religion threads on here for the sheer enjoyment they derive from bullying and condemning Christians. Your last comment was "no public money should go to these schools". All that "public" money didn't come out of your pocket but if it ever does, you can have it your way and only your way.



> The Catholic school board is grasping at straws trying to stay relevant. This decision is part PR move. Lots of people will cheer this action and feel like there are still people fighting the good fight. The good fight means alienating a huge chunk of the population and helping to instill hatred in another chunk of inpressionable youth.


I'm glad to see some Catholics still have a backbone to stand against the world. Regarding hatred. Sadly, there are self identified Catholics that hate gays and a boat load of other people as well but they're clearly not following church teaching. That said, the same hatred is no less a problem among Atheists, Agnostics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims etc. etc. or are all gay bullies and racists devout Catholics? I suppose in your black and white world view, if you don't condone and accept someones behaviour, you automatically hate them. That seems to be a popular notion. Good luck should you decide to raise children. You'll surely hate them..

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

MacGuiver said:


> I believe the church is. But you're obviously not Catholic so don't be sad, have fun. However I hope you won't be laughing if you contract throat cancer. I'm sure somebody is working hard to plug that hole in the boat, maybe a throat condom.
> Oral Sex Cause of Throat Cancer Rise


And if you read that article, you will see it is due to HPV. Something which we have a vaccine available for today, but the Catholic boards are against because they falsely believe it will lead to increased sexual activity in teens.

Regardless, oral sex knows no orientation. This is moot.


> Which is it you guys, one guy is arguing that its in our nature to be promiscuous and the next guy is blaming the promiscuous nature of the homosexual lifestyle on them being victims.


Those are two mutually exclusive arguments for two mutually exclusive points. They do not conflict with each other. The former is an argument against the assertion that something is bad because it is not natural. The latter is an argument that the shunning by society has forced some into a risky lifestyle. Not risky because of being homosexual, risky because of the inability to find partners that don't practice safe sex.


> The victim theory is a bit shaky though. Some of the most promiscuous people I knew in high school and college were among the most popular kids in school. We live in a porn culture where monogamy is almost looked upon as a failure and virginity is a curse. The message is that the guys and girls that get the most sexual gratification with the most partners are the winners. I think promiscuous gays are just living the dream.


And thankfully sex education is becoming more prevalent. Adults, including those in the homosexual community, did not get safe sex education when they were young. This is the cause for disease, not being homosexual itself. If you can't separate correlation vs. causation, then don't even try to conclude the homosexuality is bad because statistics show that disease spreads faster in the homosexuality. You don't understand the cause, so you don't even understand why your conclusion is invalid.


> I'm getting the sense a lot of you hate people you would deem as "sinners" so I can see where that concept may seem foreign to you. However Christ was the perfect example of that in action. He loved sinners enough to die for them but he never condoned the sins they committed. If someone with a decent knowledge of scripture would like to argue that point I'm all ears.


But when asked why God lets babies die, all we hear is "God works in mysterious ways?" He has a plan for all of us." Funny, when it comes to condemning the use of a rainbow or anything related to homosexuality, you all of a sudden know damned sure what the Bible is telling is, and what Jesus wants - no doubt there.

What hypocrisy. People use their misinterpreted view of Christianity as a crutch to further their warped opinion. And you're doing it here.


> I just believe what Jesus said (John 14:6). Bryan mentioned many Christians he's met when you really get down to it are actually atheists and I have to agree with him on that. They're guided by the prevailing winds of the culture.
> 
> As far as being confident, high and mighty, on a pedestal, you and most posters on this forum don't feel passionate about your beliefs and convictions? Many of the atheists posting here don't believe their position and values are the right way and only way? Give me a break! Heck they start 99.9% of the religion threads on here for the sheer enjoyment they derive from bullying and condemning Christians. Your last comment was "no public money should go to these schools". All that "public" money didn't come out of your pocket but if it ever does, you can have it your way and only your way.


Oh you poor baby. First of all, no, everyone against you is not atheist.

And second, those that disagree with you because you are using your position and values to infringe on the rights of others, not the other way around. Offending your fragile sensibilities is not infringing on a right. Not being offended is not a right.

And finally, nobody is bullying you, they are standing up against you condoning the bullying others.


> I'm glad to see some Catholics still have a backbone to stand against the world. Regarding hatred. Sadly, there are self identified Catholics that hate gays and a boat load of other people as well but they're clearly not following church teaching. That said, the same hatred is no less a problem among Atheists, Agnostics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims etc. etc. or are all gay bullies and racists devout Catholics? I suppose in your black and white world view, if you don't condone and accept someones behaviour, you automatically hate them. That seems to be a popular notion. Good luck should you decide to raise children. You'll surely hate them..


As you claim, we don't hate you. We hate your view that your view of the world should be everyone's. We hate that people are in position of power in this country to foist their view on others.

What you fail to understand is that your faith is weak if you have use rules and regulations to foist your faith on others. Have you no confidence that Christianity has enough merits to gain followers on its own? If you are using school board rules to instill faith, then it's not voluntary. When it's not voluntary it isn't faith, it's just following rules out of fear of repercussions. This is why there should be no public funding of religious schools. We can't have true freedom of religion in this country until we are free to believe in whatever religion we like, or none, if we like. And your faith will never be strong until you believe in a religion because you chose to, not because of rules and regulations instilled in you while you are in school.

If you had true faith in Christianity, you should be advocating the removal of publicly funded religion too. But I think that Christians today are afraid that Christianity is not strong enough to gain followers based on its merits, so they have to preserve and protect institutions like the Catholic school boards to indoctrinate followers instead of gaining them on Christianity's own merits.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Man this thread is a humdinger.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

hayesk said:


> If you had true faith in Christianity, you should be advocating the removal of publicly funded religion too. But I think that Christians today are afraid that Christianity is not strong enough to gain followers based on its merits, so they have to preserve and protect institutions like the Catholic school boards to indoctrinate followers instead of gaining them on Christianity's own merits.


Wow... you ought to provide some ointment after delivering a burn like that. :clap:


----------

