Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually I disagree. Without morality there really is no basis to religion or a basis to "law" itself. Check out the histories behind both terms, and you will see that. As far as your other argument goes, [b]there is nothing in the article that directly states that the father isn't talking about his religious beliefs in relation to this issue. You can quote me on that... 😆 😆 [/B]
But, that's like saying that atheists don't mind murdering people, raping the weaker and stealing from someone. That doesn't make any sense. Moarlity does not come from belief in a god. My morals come from a respect for those people I live with in the world. And you can't argue that religion is the basis of the fathers objections only when he says as much himself.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes indeed Ian MCKellen just came to my mind because of your avi 😆
He is an excellent actor. I absolutely love him. He's been my favorite actor since Apt. Pupil. I didn't even know he was gay until he said as much in an interview for the first X-Men movie. It just made me like him even more.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So now with that being stated..let's re-adress the question that was already asked..and try to answer it this time..[b]
[/B]
Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?
they denied no request. he could have opted out of the whole program or even selectively exclude literature containing anything remotely gay-related.
so your question is bullshit and thus there is no answer.
the only thing that school denied was his 'right' to harass them and bring the school to a screaching halt.
read the article pal:
----"However Rachel F. Cortez, co-president of the Estabrook Parent-Teacher Association and a member of the school's anti-bias committee, told the Boston Globe that parents receive notification about the materials in question.
''The kids don't have to take [the materials] home," she said. ''Parents can either opt out entirely or use whatever materials they want."----
so all must suffer because mr. jesus freak cant check his mail?
Originally posted by whobdamandog
So now with that being stated..let's re-adress the question that was already asked..and try to answer it this time..[b]
[/B]
Was it "legal" for the Superintendent to "deny" the man's "religious request" if it did not violate state/national law?
would it be legal for the superintendant to assume the man was basing his request on his religious beliefs, when no such indication had been stated?
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
[B]would it be legal for the superintendant to assume the man was basing his request on his religious beliefs, when no such indication had been stated? [/B]
Making an "assumption" is not illegal..however denying an individual the right to "teach" their child their own religion is..come on now you guys are making this way to easy...and you still haven't addressed the "fact" that it was never mentioned in the article that the man's request "wasn't" do to his religious doctrine.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Dude are you stupid or something...he said religion is not the base for morality....which is true...you just turned hios statement around.....plus there is neither evidence that he is talking aboot his religious belifs so why do you assume something that is nowhere stated in the text? [/B]
According to who..you?!!!..Do some research on the terms "religion" and what the fundamentals are to identifying a "belief system"(which is essentially what someone's morality is) as a "religion"..anyway we're getting a bit off topic so I'm not going to respond to this particular subject again.
Originally posted by PVS
so thats it then? you're just going to make shit up in a desperate effort to 'win'?
lol..don't make me laugh..you guys are clearly on the loosing side of this debate..let's see so far you have accepted the arguments that..
a) "Morality" of any kind should not be "mandated" as being taught in the public school.
b) It isn't against the law for an individual to make an an assumption
c) It is against the law to "deny" an individual of their religious freedom
Their I think that pretty much sums all the "arguments" that have been validated in this debate..The Superintendent was clearly in the wrong of "denying" the child's father of his religious rights..pure and simple..good nite everybody..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
lol..don't make me laugh..you guys are clearly on the loosing side of this debate..let's see so far you have accepted the arguments that..
you do realise there is no 'winning' or 'losing' this debate, right?
at least i hope you know that.
in fact, you are not even participating in this debate in that you consistantly argue imaginary points based on imaginary information from those articles. all you are doing is talking bullshit and backing it up with bullshit , and then cheering yourself on as the 'winner'
so why dont you just quote this post, throw in some 'lol's and throw some more fecese on the pile 😬 what a waste of time
God can someone please hit that guy........
ok first of all...it is quite obvious that religion is not the base of morality....even you must admit that.
Then yes its against the law to deny an individual his religious freedome...but that wasn't done anywhere so what are you trying to prove? And actuallxy morality should be taught in school and it is its just not based on religion you know.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Their I think that pretty much sums all the "arguments" that have been validated in this debate..The Superintendent was clearly in the wrong of "denying" the child's father of his religious rights..pure and simple..good nite everybody..
No one runs from a fight they're winning.
It's not a fight, so much as you refuse to accept the facts.
Originally posted by Cosmic_Beings thread
I'm going to homeschool my kids, if I ever have any
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44026
Wow, you gotta hate homophobic people.....