No freedom of speech in England.

[TerranceL]

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.

Tell the Irish that.

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.

No, it's a very American-centric way of viewing the world. This might be a shock but most people outside of the United States don't see the world from an American perspective.

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.

Did the guy quote the parts about slavery? No? Ah, then this is just a red herring.

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

I find it astonishing that you got the above from:

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

Truly amazing.

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!

In what way did I move the goal posts?

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

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

And then I provided fairly recent examples of just that. But somehow because the answer to your own points displeases you... it's moving the goalpost.

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..

Your original comment was a red herring, it's completely irrelevant to the topic at hand what else Leviticus says.

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

Well good luck with that.

 

[TerranceL]

Why are gays so damn sacred nowadays?

I tend to find all people sacred.

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!"

Whew, don't worry I wouldn't say that, the parts of the world where homosexuals receive persecution isn't christian.

the governments are on their side,

A government that protects the rights of its people. Oh noes!

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

Do you intend to give the impression here that you believe empathy is a bad thing?

or your denomination told you to change your view.

Oh don't you worry about that, no denomination told me to change nothing!

Unless you were doing something in the 60s like having an orgy than you really can't claim to be a pro-LgBT person.

This is fascinating, what do orgies in the sixties have to do with gay rights? Or wait, is it only the gay orgies that were bad? I'm so confused.

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

Most people find that over time given new data and stimuli that their current opinions and feeling will change over time. Most people. It's kind of how people grow as persons. That you don't understand it confuses me, do you believe all the same things about the world that you did when you were a ten year old? If not, why and why shouldn't the same process that allowed you to grow as a person be applied to everyone else whom your disagree with?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

Why don't they just debate him for his views and let the students decide if he is wrong or right. This wack-a-mole attitude that denies the free exchange of ideas is going to create yet another underground grievance group with an axe to grind. I don't see why these people don't see this as an opportunity to confront something that is not going away anytime soon.

The way I see it, if either side is so insecure in their views that they must reject people who think differently, how are they any better than those people who they think think wrongly? Both parties are acting out of exclusiveness, but the university, as an institution of learning should relish the chance at possibly bringing this struggle to an end. Why else would they be there at all except to help the next generation of thinkers hone their skills.

 

[Vylo]

I don't see this guy doing social work or dragging his beliefs into a workplace. I could understand him being fired from a job for publicly expressing this, but how public is a personal webpage? This is one of the reasons I stay off most social media. It seems like a great resource for businesses to punish employees for their personal life.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

I don't see this guy doing social work or dragging his beliefs into a workplace. I could understand him being fired from a job for publicly expressing this, but how public is a personal webpage? This is one of the reasons I stay off most social media. It seems like a great resource for businesses to punish employees for their personal life.

I doubt that it was the university. It was some Social Justice Warrior who feigned outrage and, in their usual style, escalated the complaint to try and punish someone they disagreed with.

 

[Gadarene]

No freedom of speech?

So, has this guy been arrested and sent straight to a gulag?

I'm guessing, probably not.

There is freedom of speech in the UK. Some of the most 'free speech' in the world.

But what freedom of speech does not mean, is say whatever you like with no consequences. If I were to post a link to my company's biggest competitor on Facebook, with a comment about how great they are, I would probably get the sack. Equally, if you attend a university, you sign up to their rules. Which evidently forbid spreading homophobic messages.

And yet freedom of speech is a value as well as a legal principle, and rules that are overbearing with regard to discussion of certain topics will impinge on it. Now, that's legally protected, but a culture that repeatedly and increasingly devalues freedom of expression in private will not necessarily maintain it in public either.

This is not a new argument, btw, the ACLU have been making this point for years.

 

[Gadarene]

People often falsely assume that freedoms extend to the workplace...they don't...

The moment you sign on the dotted line to work for someone else, you're voluntarily waiving certain rights and agreeing to play by their rules.

Same goes for any other case where you're on someone else's property. If someone has a rule that there's no cussing in their house...I can't claim first amendment violation if they ask me to leave for cussing.


Granted...I understand the frustration for some as there have been a number of double standards established in the past few years that make exceptions for certain groups that tread the line of violating a business owner's rights.

People can surely make the distinction between legally protected free speech and freedom of speech as a principle. The objections to this decision are based on the latter.

While repression of speech is in many circumstances legally protected speech in its own right, that doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Gadarene]

Yes, even in the U.S. it's just the government which is legally precluded from punishing speech, and people do get it mixed up. An example is when the Dixie Chicks criticized George Bush and received a great backlash, they complained about their freedom of speech being violated. No, their freedom wasn't being violated, there were just a lot of people telling them they disagreed with them. There's no legal protection from being disagreed with.

But in the case of a university especially, whether in the U.S. or U.K. or anywhere, the idea of stifling ideas in a place devoted to learning doesn't sit right with me.

Actually in the US it depends - if it is a publicly funded university, then your university emphatically *does not* have the right to censor you or discipline you based on what you say. Doing so would violate the first amendment, as constitutional protections extend within publicly funded bodies, including universities.

What worries me is that here in the UK we have no such protections.

 

[Gadarene]

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

*cough*the Irish*

 

[Gadarene]

Why don't they just debate him for his views and let the students decide if he is wrong or right. This wack-a-mole attitude that denies the free exchange of ideas is going to create yet another underground grievance group with an axe to grind. I don't see why these people don't see this as an opportunity to confront something that is not going away anytime soon.

The way I see it, if either side is so insecure in their views that they must reject people who think differently, how are they any better than those people who they think think wrongly? Both parties are acting out of exclusiveness, but the university, as an institution of learning should relish the chance at possibly bringing this struggle to an end. Why else would they be there at all except to help the next generation of thinkers hone their skills.

You'd think out of all the places in the world where an idea could be debated openly and utterly demolished, a university would be the place.

But not these days. Got to shelter the entitled little dears from ideas that might upset them. So glad I got out of the uni system years ago.

 

[Armoured]

http://www.christianheadlines.com/b...rsity-for-quoting-bible-on-homosexuality.html

It's so sad that years of study and hard work can be wiped out for posting Biblical views on your FB account.

And, as usual, the hysterical headline fails to convey the relevant facts in the story.

 

[Armoured]

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.

How old are you? I'm 38, and I can remember a time wgen coming out as gay was an open invitation to get your teeth kicked in. It has only very recently become unacceptable to treat gays like dirt, most places. As such, their "equal" status is still very tender and new. The "sacredness" of which you speak is kinda necessary to prevent backsliding.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

You'd think out of all the places in the world where an idea could be debated openly and utterly demolished, a university would be the place.

But not these days. Got to shelter the entitled little dears from ideas that might upset them. So glad I got out of the uni system years ago.

It just sets up a level of intolerance that these same people claim that others have and it degrades the ability of others to cope with adversity.

How can any country survive in today's world of political and religious absolutes, as sat down by extremists everywhere, when we are taught to force those same extremist underground, by not facing them in a clash of ideas? It is not the rants of the fringe groups that cause strife. It's a activities of their polar opposites, which validate what they say that ends up in clandestine activities that are the most destructive.

 

[Gadarene]

How old are you? I'm 38, and I can remember a time wgen coming out as gay was an open invitation to get your teeth kicked in. It has only very recently become unacceptable to treat gays like dirt, most places. As such, their "equal" status is still very tender and new. The "sacredness" of which you speak is kinda necessary to prevent backsliding.

Overreacting to a statement that isn't in practice going to harm anyone will only enhance backsliding, rather than preventing it.

 

[Gadarene]

It just sets up a level of intolerance that these same people claim that others have and it degrades the ability of others to cope with adversity.

They are being atrociously ill-equipped to deal with the real world, yes.

How can any country survive in today's world of political and religious absolutes, as sat down by extremists everywhere, when we are taught to force those same extremist underground, by not facing them in a clash of ideas? It is not the rants of the fringe groups that cause strife. It's a activities of their polar opposites, which validate what they say that ends up in clandestine activities that are the most destructive.

In the UK this is particularly ironic - a solid decade or so of shrieking RACIST at people who express concern about immigration has just galvanised the rise of some very sternly anti-immigration parties, many of whom are actually racist to boot. Goodness knows why we couldn't have just *talked* about this instead....

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

How old are you? I'm 38, and I can remember a time wgen coming out as gay was an open invitation to get your teeth kicked in. It has only very recently become unacceptable to treat gays like dirt, most places. As such, their "equal" status is still very tender and new. The "sacredness" of which you speak is kinda necessary to prevent backsliding.

There is no sacred cows that the public will allow to infringe on their right to speak their mind. This overeaching will soon become tiresome by those who pretty much roll their eyes at all of this, because it wasn't their issue to begin with.

The entire reason that the situation changes is because the standards of one side reflected so little to the average citizen that those values were considered more irritating than beneficial. When the other side becomes so enamored by their victories, which were facilitated tin no small measure to these same middle of the road types, that they become as irritating as the first bunch, how long will it be before the new group gets their lunch handed to them?

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

They are being atrociously ill-equipped to deal with the real world, yes.



In the UK this is particularly ironic - a solid decade or so of shrieking RACIST at people who express concern about immigration has just galvanised the rise of some very sternly anti-immigration parties, many of whom are actually racist to boot. Goodness knows why we couldn't have just *talked* about this instead....

The angry and the bitter will always draw off the worst of human emotions. They don't do it this to right any wrong, but to gain the very followers who will need to be lead to the quote/unquote promised land that these people envision. They don't want to work within the system, they want to be the system. God said that by peoples own fruits they will be identified and what are the fruits of these people. Have they alleviated anything or have they just set up the next group with a grudge against the world?

There are ways of handling things, just as there are ways of talking to people that gets something accomplished. Some people are more addicted to fighting the quote/unquote "Good Fight" than they are to creating a honorable peace that everyone can live with.

 

[Heber Book List]

FYI. It is not illegal in the UK today to state your beliefs in what Scripture says, even if it relates to people with an alternative sexuality to the writer / speaker. I can happily preach that the Bible forbids same sex marriages or homosexual behaviour, provided I preach on the Word of God without any malicious words against the people who live that way. I can post on social media that I do not agree with homosexuality or same sex marriages, and say why I disagree (the Bible says so), but I cannot condemn those who have opposite views though I find, in reality, they are quick to condemn people like me who simply speak the truth of God's word (I have had FB posts deleted because on my University's FB page, it once said it supported homosexuality etc. I posted that it was unfortunate because there was not a 'dislike' button. That soon attracted incoming abusive posts, which I then reported to FB, whilst maintaining that I had a legal right to simply disagree, as others had a legal right to agree - I had not broken the law... but they had in attacking me!). I can refuse to officiate at a same-sex marriage on the grounds of my own conscience, or the collective conscience of my congregation, provided my refusal is not in any way tied in with condemnation of the individual(s). It all has to be tied into my firm Biblical beliefs as a Christian to keep me out of trouble with some of our sillier laws.

What I CANNOT do is to say that such people will suffer eternal damnation and never get to heaven, or similar things that are derogatory or threatening, though they may, it seems, offend me with blasphemous comments about my religious beliefs, where those beliefs are not in line with their own desire to live differently to me. However, from one side of the metaphorical 'fence' in the UK, you have only to say / preach things which others can then claim was offensive, to them personally, in a public place, for that person to be able to go and get a police officer and have you charged with a crime - whether what you have said is about sexuality, religion or nationality. They would not even have to show a clear intent, on your part, to insult or condemn their views. Search the info about the guy who was told by a UK judge that he used the 'wrong' part of Scripture to counter a heckler - the part he used was claimed to be condemnatory to the hearer and the judge upheld the conviction, and went to all the trouble of finding a 'better' part of Scripture that the guy should have used!

I am not sure that the University is right in its action, unless the University course makes it clear, in the Course Handbook, that those views are not acceptable to either the University or the sponsoring body for the Course - the body that provides the Professional Certificate of Competence.

In other countries the laws relating to these issues are probably very different!

 

[TheNorwegian]

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.

Why not? Is it illegal to support only 90 % of what's in the Bible - if that what he wants to do?

 

[grandvizier1006]

I tend to find all people sacred.

Whew, don't worry I wouldn't say that, the parts of the world where homosexuals receive persecution isn't christian.

A government that protects the rights of its people. Oh noes!

Do you intend to give the impression here that you believe empathy is a bad thing?

Oh don't you worry about that, no denomination told me to change nothing!

This is fascinating, what do orgies in the sixties have to do with gay rights? Or wait, is it only the gay orgies that were bad? I'm so confused.

Most people find that over time given new data and stimuli that their current opinions and feeling will change over time. Most people. It's kind of how people grow as persons. That you don't understand it confuses me, do you believe all the same things about the world that you did when you were a ten year old? If not, why and why shouldn't the same process that allowed you to grow as a person be applied to everyone else whom your disagree with?

Disregard all that. I was just really mad about unrelated things when I psoted that.