No freedom of speech in England.

[TerranceL]

So we have a black guy quoting Leviticus to protest homosexuality.. And this guy is black? I have to wonder if he's ever even read the bible.. Leviticus also endorses slavery.. What a moron..

Uh....huh.... I realize you think this is significant, and it speaks volumes about you that you think it is significant.

It's not.

 

[Murby]

Uh....huh.... I realize you think this is significant, and it speaks volumes about you that you think it is significant.

It's not.

Elaborate?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

I never have to worry about that here at Liberty U. lol If anything you can get less points on certain papers if you don't quote any Bible verses.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"A spokesperson from the University of Sheffield said: "The University of Sheffield is concerned that stories in the media about a student undertaking a MA in Social Work are factually incorrect.""

The University is not commenting, since it's on appeal. My guess is that christianheadlines and christianitytoday may not be telling the story in a totally unbiased fashion.

 

[Chesterton]

What idea's where being stifled? The student wasn't posting idea's, he was basically posting bigotry based hate speech wrapped in biblical doctrine. Obviously that can be argued, but its the point I'm trying to make.

Of course he was posting ideas. Ideas are not non-ideas just because you don't like them, lol. If an idea can be argued then let's argue it. Stifling is not argument, it's oppression.

 

[Chesterton]

Ok.. are you folks ready for some irony?

I read the post. Still waiting for the irony.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Ok.. are you folks ready for some irony?
So this UK student apparently quoted Leviticus 20 - punishments for sin...

Anyone see a photo of this guy?


Also in Leviticus:

Leviticus 25:44-46
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.

So we have a black guy quoting Leviticus to protest homosexuality.. And this guy is black? I have to wonder if he's ever even read the bible.. Leviticus also endorses slavery.. What a moron..

To put it in the words of my black African American Studies professor in public college: "Biblical slavery is nothing like West African chattel slavery". The only idiots are the people who refuse to drop the conflation.

 

[Chris B]

The University is not commenting, since it's on appeal. My guess is that christianheadlines and christianitytoday may not be telling the story in a totally unbiased fashion.

I went looking for more information (often a good move as a general principle)
I'd suggest a read here, for those sufficiently interested.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016...rk-student-facebook-posts-draconian-deserved/

"Ngole is appealing the decision. He told The Telegraph he’d worked with people in same-sex relationships in the past with “no issue whatsoever” but, if asked, he should be able to express his views."

" At time of writing a poll on Community Care, which has received more than 2,000 responses, shows opinion is split 60/40 in favour of the decision. "

Me, I think the decision appears to have been rushed, without (it seems) interview or discussion with Mr Ngole.
Especially as he was still a student, not an employed social worker with an official code to follow.
It may be unfair simply on one or other of those grounds.

But there are plenty of circumstances, working with the public as an employee of an organisation, where one is not free to express personal opinions or judgements when they conflict with a code of practice which comes as part of the terms of employment. If that is not acceptable then the job is not suitable for the individual.

But I have a suspicion this was not adequate explored before a decision was taken: this should come out in the appeal.
It may be that the decision was in fact right, but that due process was not even approximately followed.
(that's not unheard-of, to put it mildly)

 

[TerranceL]

Elaborate?

Your post comes off as, "GOSH THAT COLORED GUY SURE IS IGNORANT! LAWL".

 

[Murby]

To put it in the words of my black African American Studies professor in public college: "Biblical slavery is nothing like West African chattel slavery". The only idiots are the people who refuse to drop the conflation.

So educate me.. What's the difference?

 

[Murby]

Your post comes off as, "GOSH THAT COLORED GUY SURE IS IGNORANT! LAWL".

Black folks were enslaved in America for 200+ years.. You'd think they would be vigilant against anything that endorsed it.

 

[TerranceL]

Black folks were enslaved in America for 200+ years.. You'd think they would be vigilant against anything that endorsed it.

Can you find me a group of people who weren't enslaved?

And I'm fairly certain that Leviticus doesn't endorse the Africans being enslaved in America.

 

[Murby]

Can you find me a group of people who weren't enslaved?

For over two hundred years in modern times? Nope.. none that I can think of except what's in our own American history.

And I'm fairly certain that Leviticus doesn't endorse the Africans being enslaved in America.

If he's quoting bible passages in protest against homosexuality, I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's endorsing... When one quotes the bible as authoritative, one should be aware of what's in the bible and be ready to stand by all the other stuff.
You don't get to pick and choose which parts have authority or righteousness and should be upheld and which don't.

 

[Arcangl86]

Black folks were enslaved in America for 200+ years.. You'd think they would be vigilant against anything that endorsed it.

Do you have any indication that this person is American? If so, why would American history of slavery matter?

 

[TerranceL]

For over two hundred years in modern times? Nope.. none that I can think of except what's in our own American history.

Who considered 150+ years ago modern times? But no I get why you decided to move the goal posts there, otherwise you'd have to consider the 700 years of slavery the Russian serfs suffered under their rulers. And it's peculiar that you don't mention the arab slave trade, which continued up into the middle of the 20th century and was easily four times as many slaves as America. You do realize there is a whole world out there beyond the borders of the United States right?

If he's quoting bible passages in protest against homosexuality, I'm pretty sure he doesn't know what he's endorsing...

What makes you so sure?

When one quotes the bible as authoritative, one should be aware of what's in the bible and be ready to stand by all the other stuff.

And you've asked his opinion on "other stuff"?

You don't get to pick and choose which parts have authority or righteousness and should be upheld and which don't.

Its seemed to work for thousands of years I don't see why people would stop now.

 

[TerranceL]

Do you have any indication that this person is American? If so, why would American history of slavery matter?

It's the implication that because a people share the same color of skin they must also share the same history and concerns.

There's a word for that..

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Black folks were enslaved in America for 200+ years.. You'd think they would be vigilant against anything that endorsed it.

They don't seem to care much about slavery unless they can find a way to blame white people for it.

 

[Murby]

It's the implication that because a people share the same color of skin they must also share the same history and concerns.

Actually yes in this case. Slavery in the USA was based on the color of your skin. The darker your color or the "blacker" you where (IE: more pigment), the more hard labor you did. Slavery wasn't based on race, it was based on skin color.
Considering that every educated man on the planet is probably aware of the historical atrocities committed by whites here in the USA, I would think everyone, especially black people, would be sensitive to it. Maybe I'm wrong.. maybe some don't give a rats behind what happened back then.. If that's the case then I stand corrected, but its a reasonable assumption. In any case, the guy quoted Leviticus where slavery is endorsed. I don't care what race or color you are, that's pretty bad.

There's a word for that.

There's a word for failure to understand the bible endorses slavery?

Who considered 150+ years ago modern times? But no I get why you decided to move the goal posts there, otherwise you'd have to consider the 700 years of slavery the Russian serfs suffered under their rulers. And it's peculiar that you don't mention the arab slave trade, which continued up into the middle of the 20th century and was easily four times as many slaves as America. You do realize there is a whole world out there beyond the borders of the United States right?

Wow.. that was pretty good! Seriously.. You didn't just move the goal posts, you changed the entire field.. and you did it fairly intelligently. Touche!
But it still doesn't invalidate the meaning of my original comment.. Glorifying the bible by quoting Leviticus to condemn homosexuality while ignoring Leviticus about slavery..

Its seemed to work for thousands of years I don't see why people would stop now.

While certainly true, it doesn't mean we should stay quiet about it.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Ignore my post here. I was tired, stressed and angry.

 

[rambot]

Why are gays so damn sacred nowadays? And don't give me some crap about "they're oppressed by those evil Christians and we love them so much and care for them!" Because most of them don't live in a place where there is this big group of Christians persecuting them, the governments are on their side, and you people probably didn't give a crap about gay rights and might have even favored traditional marriage up until you either met a gay person or your denomination told you to change your view. Unless you were doing something in the 60s like having an orgy than you really can't claim to be a pro-LgBT person. Honestly, I don't understand how people can be so stupid as to believe one thing in one moment and then believe in something completely different the next just because everyone else tells them to.

"Just because everyone told them to". When is it appropriate to believe one thing one moment and then believe something completely different the next? I assume you think it's okay for people to change their minds