What are your thoughts on this?

[Whyayeman]

What if I said teaching the Bible in elementary school will result in children loving their neighbors, carting for the poor, treating others as they would like to be treated and being better citizens. Which of those characteristics do you object to?

It is compulsory to teach the Bible in UK schools. The law also requires schools to hold a daily act of worship. It is illegal to teach the Bible in France. French children are at least as well behaved as British.

I don't think it makes a difference to children's behaviour.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think it makes a difference to children's behaviour.

I'd be concerned if it did.

 

[BPPLEE]

None.

Now you can, if you please, answer mine. Someone said the characteristics I listed that could be taught to children amounted to child abuse. I think that's grossly nonsensensical. It was said simply prompted by the fact that the characteristics were listed by someone who sees no problem in that song.

I asked for your opinion and perhaps for the same reasons you refused to answer. This shows the absurdity of attitudes exhibited in threads like this. One could say the sky is blue and it wouldn't be accepted simply if the person saying it has a different opinion on gay issues.

So answer the question, please.

None of the characteristics are objectionable but there is no evidence teaching children that are too young to be discussing such things about gender identity and sexuality will result in any of those characteristics.
Nor do I think the Bible or any religion should be taught in a public school.

 

[BPPLEE]

It is compulsory to teach the Bible in UK schools. The law also requires schools to hold a daily act of worship. It is illegal to teach the Bible in France. French children are at least as well behaved as British.

I don't think it makes a difference to children's behaviour.

I don’t advocate teaching the Bible or any religion in a public school. It’s a parent’s responsibility to teach their children about religion, not the school’s, not the government’s.
I was making a point to illustrate what @Bradskii was doing with his question

 

[Bradskii]

None of the characteristics are objectionable but there is no evidence teaching children that are too young to be discussing such things about gender identity and sexuality will result in any of those characteristics.
Nor do I think the Bible or any religion should be taught in a public school.

But they are characteristics we'd all like to see in our children. Discounting them, in themselves, as being 'child abuse' is simply grotesque.

 

[Bradskii]

I don’t advocate teaching the Bible or any religion in a public school. It’s a parent’s responsibility to teach their children about religion, not the school’s, not the government’s.
I was making a point to illustrate what @Bradskii was doing with his question

Bradskii was asking whether the characteristics he listed could be termed child abuse. He was trying to separate anti gay rhetoric from reasonable statements.

 

[BPPLEE]

But they are characteristics we'd all like to see in our children. Discounting them, in themselves, as being 'child abuse' is simply grotesque.

I’m not the one who posted that so you’re addressing the wrong person

 

[BPPLEE]

Bradskii was asking whether the characteristics he listed could be termed child abuse. He was trying to separate anti gay rhetoric from reasonable statements.

I didn’t say they were child abuse. You keep addressing the wrong person

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not the one who posted that so you’re addressing the wrong person

No, but you mentioned my post and said I had no right to impose my beliefs on others. I was talking about what must surely be considered morally correct characteristics. I wanted to know if you disagreed with the person who nonsensically said it was abuse.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, but you mentioned my post and said I had no right to impose my beliefs on others. I was talking about what must surely be considered morally correct characteristics. I wanted to know if you disagreed with the person who nonsensically said it was abuse.

No one has a right to impose their beliefs on others, whether I agree with them or not

 

[Bradskii]

No one has a right to impose their beliefs on others, whether I agree with them or not

Yeah, we did this dance. And yes,
I agree with you. I was asking if those characteristics I mentioned could be described, as they were by another poster , as child abuse. I would have thought the answer was pretty obvious. It has me beat that it seems so hard to answer...

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah, we did this dance. And yes,
I agree with you. I was asking if those characteristics I mentioned could be described, as they were by another poster , as child abuse. I would have thought the answer was pretty obvious. It has me beat that it seems so hard to answer...

I didn’t say anything about child abuse

 

[Bradskii]

I didn’t say anything about child abuse

I just said it was by another poster. You joined in that particular aspect of the conversation so I asked if you agreed with him. It was a nonsensical suggestion so I presumed you didn't. Although asking simple questions in some threads is like pulling teeth...

 

[ozso]

The coming for your children agenda has been observed for long time. And it becomes more prevalent each year. At this point the agenda has infiltrated the school system to the point where legal battles are taking place over it. While the song is presented as satire, it really isn't.

 

[Bradskii]

The coming for your children agenda has been observed for long time. And it becomes more prevalent each year. At this point the agenda has infiltrated the school system to the point where legal battles are taking place over it. While the song is presented as satire, it really isn't.

It really is. A rather obvious satire as well. And you misread it completely. Even thinking that the monstrous lies about child abuse charges were true. How come we hear so much about media lies yet you didn't even spend a few seconds checking the veracity of something that was so obvious to most of us.

I know why, though. You wanted it to be true. It fits what you want to believe. It's a classic example of what is all too prevalent in these here parts, I'm afraid. It's why junk like those abuse charges get friction. As my avatar one said: The easiest person to fool is oneself.

 

[ozso]

Claims have been made that some chorus members being sex offenders is a hoax. But no one has posted any evidence of that.

It's highly unlikely YouTube would keep a video up that is falsely accusing men of being registered sex offenders using their names and faces.

No matter how prevalent and blatant this becomes, there will be deniers claiming it's all fake and not really happening.

 

[Bradskii]

Claims have been made that some chorus members being sex offenders is a hoax. But no one has posted any evidence of that.

It's highly unlikely YouTube would keep a video up that is falsely accusing men of being registered sex offenders using their names and faces.

No matter how prevalent and blatant this becomes, there will be deniers claiming it's all fake and not really happening.

Are you actually doubling down on this? Good grief...

Here's California Sexual offenders site. You can type in a name a nd It will show you if that person is a convicted sex offender. It will include any and all aliases:

California Megans Law

I've done the first three so you don't have to.

The first choir singer is David Shawn Wallace. Offender is David Eugune Wallace. So not the same guy. Their photos aren't of the same guy. The second choir singer is Raymond Mark Gonzalez. No offender has that name. So two out of two so far. The third is the current director of the choir, Keith Pepper and he is an attorney. There is a Keith Arron Pepper on the offenders list so the name doesn't match and the guy looks absolutely nothing like the director. Three outof three

Want to do the rest? I really can't be bothered.

So, yeah, it is all fake and you have been fooled.

 

[BPPLEE]

Claims have been made that some chorus members being sex offenders is a hoax. But no one has posted any evidence of that.

It's highly unlikely YouTube would keep a video up that is falsely accusing men of being registered sex offenders using their names and faces.

No matter how prevalent and blatant this becomes, there will be deniers claiming it's all fake and not really happening.

 

[ozso]

Anyone have any evidence of second part being fake or not yet?

 

[Bradskii]

Edit: Apologies, I have confused you with Ordinary Christian. Post edited.