Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No thats stifling free speach. Freedom of speach says you won't be prevented from saying things. It never EVER means, your free to say what you want and people arn't allowed to stop giving you a platform. A university, a job, a tv station, a convention and any other place has the right to say, your allowed to say what you want, we just won't give you the podium to say it from here. There is such thing as image, and you want a pro Christian, or a progay, or a pro X image, allowing someone to say things against that ruins said image.
There is this bizzare idea that only recently started that freedom of speach means you MUST give me a platform anywhere I want.
When Canadian preacher Todd Bentley was banned, the U.K. Government's Home Office stated with righteous indignation: "Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who might seek to undermine our society."
Please be aware, entering the United States is a privilege, not a right
The problem is we are seeing people being punished for what they do outside of work the objective is clearly to silence people via fear.
What an odd way to put, "were going to contact your boss and get you fired if you say something we don't like on your facebook".
Since the thread title is about freedom in England generally, we should remember that people get banned from entry into the U.K. based solely on their speech and nothing else - Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage, Terry Jones, Julien Blanc to name a few. Completely banned from even a visit.
When Canadian preacher Todd Bentley was banned, the U.K. Government's Home Office stated with righteous indignation: "Coming here is a privilege that we refuse to extend to those who might seek to undermine our society." You might want to let that soak in, and keep it in mind the time you're watching one of the flood of videos of angry Muslims with their signs saying "Death To U.K.!" "Sharia For the U.K." and "Britain Is Ours Now!"
And if he is actually treating gay people as subhuman in practice, then discipline based on that. Simply quoting a Bible verse is not the same thing.Thing is it can be directly related, if your job is to help gays/muslims or what ever your views on them very much can effect how you handle things.
Thing is it can be directly related, if your job is to help gays/muslims or what ever your views on them very much can effect how you handle things.
If you have a better suggesting to change society-wide mainstream attitudes, be my guest.
In theory, I agree with you.
However, in practical terms, I'm sure that legal protections of civil rights are necessary. Societies are made of people, and people are imperfect. If we all had A. the time, B. the intelligence, C. the objectivity, to fully discuss the complexities and nuances of every issue, that would be great. But we don't.
If we limited ourselves to "just talking about stuff", I can't think of a social advance that would have ever happened.Actually talking about this stuff rather than insulting people into submission and destroying their livelihood, thus virtually guaranteeing their views will just reemerge later in a more virulent form?
It's not like we haven't seen this happen before or anything like that
The US customs and border protection site states:
That privilege is regularly not extended to those who have criminal convictions and who are suspected (but not proven) of having ties to criminal or terrorist groups. It also applies to "Visitors who have been arrested (even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction)". You'll also get checked on the way in to make sure you have sufficient money to enjoy your visit to the US - who decides what level that is isn't specified.
The situations seem quite similar to me.
If we limited ourselves to "just talking about stuff", I can't think of a social advance that would have ever happened.
Well, as he put it: Biblical slavery is more like indentured servitude.So educate me.. What's the difference?
Well, refusing to countenance the opposing views of slave owners springs to mind.And how has refusal to countenance opposing views caused social advance?
Well, refusing to countenance the opposing views of slave owners springs to mind.
Frances Schaeffer use to write about water shed issues. http://www.bible-researcher.com/schaeffer1.htmlhttp://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.
That was the problem down south. The Bible had two differnet kinds of indentured servants. If the servant was your fellow country man or women then you had to release them after 7 years. IF they became your servant from another country then you had to release them after 49 years. So slavery could not pass from generation to generation.Well, as he put it: Biblical slavery is more like indentured servitude.
Well, refusing to countenance the opposing views of slave owners springs to mind.
Like I said, it would be great if we could discuss every opinion and POV and its nuances, but there comes a point where, for pure practical reasons, lines must be drawn.But we only think that's a good thing because we don't agree with them.
Societies and governments have at various times refused to countenance opposition to their policies, union membership, freedom of association to various groups, voting rights for various groups, the list goes on
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?