Edmonton Christian school: LGBQT's have mental illnesses

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

First of all, "you're" means "you are". "Your" is possessive. I assumed the mistake in your earlier post was a typo but you're killing me here, man.

Second, okay, if you're talking about literally nailing up the doors of a Church so no one can go and worship anymore, we're on the same page... though it'd be pretty damned hard to do that to a private school, too, given that 2(b) is also in the Charter.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Ace

I'm not sure if people really realize this, but every child that goes to a private school saves the tax payer money. Yes private schools get public funds, but at a far reduced amount than public schools. The more and more that private schools can perform well, with reduced public funds the more efficient financially education becomes.

We really should support more education options. Whether it's a religious school, sports school, arts school, academic school. (For the record I don't have kids in any of these schools). Having a 100% public school only run and funded by the NDP certainly shouldn't be our goal as a province.

I'm just making the point here, not suggesting your post is against private schools (just the ones you don't agree with)

I would like to see them get absolutely no public funding. That would save tax payers even more.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First of all, "you're" means "you are". "Your" is possessive. I assumed the mistake in your earlier post was a typo but you're killing me here, man.

Second, okay, if you're talking about literally nailing up the doors of a Church so no one can go and worship anymore, we're on the same page... though it'd be pretty damned hard to do that to a private school, too, given that 2(b) is also in the Charter.

Fixed that, for the sanity of any readers coming through later.

I was referring to literally nailing up the doors like you can with a school. The post I was responding to bundled shutting these things down together, when doing so is very different. The poster clarified that they have something else in mind by this, but that wasn't at all clear. We haven't even been able to shut down people practicing polygamy or religious reasons, though we have prosecuted the groups leaders.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Wait... child sex slaves? Female castration (by which I assume you mean FGM)? Which Christian-majority countries are those?

Not that I know why this is even a discussion topic in a thread about a school in Edmonton. This thing is totally off the rails.

Russia and the Congo (as well as a few other countries in Africa, thanks missionaries!) were what I was thinking of when I wrote the post. Congo is something like 90+% Christian? And that's basically a human rights hellhole.

Something like 10 posts in polak was talking about how gays can't take a joke. This thread has no rails.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Alright but the alternative is dictating what a Religious school is allowed to teach and whether or not they are allowed to stay true to their beliefs, however wrong those may be. Freedom of Religion after all. Is the answer just doing away with Religious schools then? I know that would make some people very happy. Or should they just edit all the stuff out that might offend someone. I'm not sure there is a good answer. I think part of having freedom, is the freedom to be wrong too.

How far does that freedom go? What if the school wasn't teaching these things against homosexuals and transexuals, but about Jews? What if they were saying black people have a mental illness? What's the difference, it's the freedom to be wrong.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Ace

I'm not sure if people really realize this, but every child that goes to a private school saves the tax payer money. Yes private schools get public funds, but at a far reduced amount than public schools. The more and more that private schools can perform well, with reduced public funds the more efficient financially education becomes.

We really should support more education options. Whether it's a religious school, sports school, arts school, academic school. (For the record I don't have kids in any of these schools). Having a 100% public school only run and funded by the NDP certainly shouldn't be our goal as a province.

I'm just making the point here, not suggesting your post is against private schools (just the ones you don't agree with)

Only if one assumes that those kids would go to a public school if the subsidy didn't exist which is a pretty big leap in logic. Some would, but I seriously doubt we'd see an exodus of 2/3rds of private school students into the public system which is about what it'd would take for the public system to cost more than the current setup. In fact, Ontario provides no subsidies to private schools and they have a higher percentage of their student population in independent schools than Alberta does.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

The problem with the left is that everybody that doesn't agree with them is a bigot. Hate speech counts as speech that they don't like currently. It's completely hypocritical and kind of goes against the central message doesn't it? Haven't you noticed how the left was cannibalizing on themselves after Trump won.

Actually, if you followed the Off Topic forum you'd know that this issue is discussed regularly on this site, with Corsi frequently calling out the left on the very Liberal double standard surrounding Islam that you have raised.

However at the end of the day, criticism of Christianity vs criticism of Islam are 2 unrelated issues (and arguments)

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

You are completely wrong on all of this to a ridiculous level. I'd love to rip this apart but I'm sure I will be called out for straying off topic. At the same time I can't let you post this nonsense unchallenged, so I'll point out a couple things.

Hitler was not a Christian at all, did he try to coop Christianity to achieve his political aspirations, absolutely. Many leaders that have an agenda have successfully done this, that doesn't mean that religion or Christianity is to blame for these actions. Religion is merely a tool that can be used for good or evil, that is on the user. As pointed out earlier, Hitlers beliefs were racially motivated. Hitler himself was rumoured to be part Jewish. You do know that the old testament is based largely off the Hebrew Bible?

Communism is rooted in a secular or atheistic belief. Actually try reading some Marx, he openly states that Christianity is naturally resistant and an enemy to the Communist Ideology. Stalin was an atheist until his dying breath, that is well documented. Think about it, who needs a God belief system when the State will fill that role. Have you ever noticed how most atheists are GENERALLY very left leaning politically, that is not by accident.

I know atheism is having a big resurgence now but it has been around for a long time, and for the most part rejected by most societies. In the absence of a God belief, men will make themselves out to be God's, look no further then North Korea for a modern day example of this, or look back in time to the Nations that followed Marxist doctrine.

Feel free to rip it apart, but it is difficult to do so when dealing with the facts, and those are Hitler's own words...amongst others.

Tu quoque (“You Too”) Fallacy
The Tuquoque fallacy is an informal fallacy used to dismiss criticism by means of deflection. [31] Instead of addressing an accusation or charge, the perpetrator of this fallacy will offer an example of their opponent’s alleged hypocrisy with regards to the allegation. This is precisely how Christian apologists employ the atheist atrocities fallacy.
To give you an example of this fallacy in action, we need only examine the reply of renowned Christian apologist, Dinesh D’Souza, to charges of religious violence:
And who can deny that Stalinand Mao, not to mention Pol Potand a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? [32]
“…it is interesting to find that people of faith now seek defensively to say that they are no worse than fascists or Nazis or Stalinists.” [33] ~Christopher Hitchens
This fallacy will be often employed with an added sprinkle of one-upmanship, with the apologist using the immense scale of secular atrocities to argue that atheism is worse than religion. However, if we were to honestly calculate those victims of ritual and religious sacrifice across the entire planet, the total number of witches burned and drowned across Europe and in America, the near genocides of the Pacific Islanders by the London Missionary Society, and similar missionary organizations, the dismembered bodies of the Saint Francis Xavier’s Inquisition in Goa, the disembowelled remains of the Anabaptists in Europe, the men, women and children murdered by Muslim conquerors from the Middle-East to Spain, the stoned and strangled blasphemers in Christian states of the past and Muslim ones of the modern age, and all of the unmarked graves of all of the victims of religion, from the dawn of that plague to now, I am quite certain that the numbers game would prove to be an unfruitful one for the desperate apologist.

Suppose the Christian apologist is correct, and atheist tyrants are worse than religious ones. What does this, from the point of view of the believer, show? What are the implications? On the one hand, you can interpret it to show that the more people believe in the Christian god, the more virtuous they will behave, despite the fact that the truth of history will laugh at such vacuous attempts to ignore its tomes of evidence to the contrary. On the other, what does it say about an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving god, one who allows tyrants, whether secular or religious, to murder helpless and innocent children by the millions, who turns a blind eye to the wrongful imprisonment of innocent men and women, and who starves to bare bones, the poor and meek?

[GGG]

I think that "fallacy" misses the point. (And calling it a fallacy really waters down the meaning of real logical fallacies)

It isn't your guy is worse.

It's all humans have the capacity to commit horrible a crimes and use pre existing power structures (be they religious or secular) to carry out those crimes.

It's an argument of you can't blame religion as a philosophy for all crimes committed in its name anymore that you can blame atheism for crimes comitted by the non religious. You need far more logical rigor to advance this type of claim.

So in general the you too fallacy is just a straw man.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think that "fallacy" misses the point. (And calling it a fallacy really waters down the meaning of real logical fallacies)

It isn't your guy is worse.

It's all humans have the capacity to commit horrible a crimes and use pre existing power structures (be they religious or secular) to carry out those crimes.

It's an argument of you can't blame religion as a philosophy for all crimes committed in its name anymore that you can blame atheism for crimes comitted by the non religious. You need far more logical rigor to advance this type of claim.

So in general the you too fallacy is just a straw man.

While there's always a real risk of engaging in the fallacy fallacy, Tu quoque is very much a legitimate fallacy unless the claim is that without believing x, you can't do y. For example, "without religion, evil can not exist", or "all evil is motivated by religion"

However, this is almost never the charge, but rather one of several other charges are being made, including the following:

1. The charge is a version of the problem of evil which asks how could a benevolent God allow these horrible things to be committed in his name.

2. That claim that is seems strange that revealed truth from a perfect being can be used to justify such horrible things.

3. The claim the believing in God motivates some people to do bad things as they incorrectly believe that God is either telling them directly or guiding them indirectly (by coming with power through scripture, or by receiving suddenly clarity regarding a particular opportunity).

4. Religion, god(s), scripture(s), etc are used to justify harmful actions and compel more people to join in than might otherwise have.

Even when it's not a fallacy, responding by saying it's not unique to Christianity or believers in a personal God doesn't actually help the Christian or theist, even as it defeats the claim. It basically just concedes that point that there's nothing special morally about being a Christian or having the revealed word of God for moral guidance. This is why the response is usually to deny that people justified these things using Christianity, even when they clearly did (regardless of if they were true believers).

Basically, too often Christians misunderstand the claim being made when it's pointed out that Hitler was a Christian,etc and many other harms are justified and made possible by appealing to the Bible, christian tradition, etc. The charge isn't that they did these things because they were Christian, but rather, Christianity allowed them to justify it to masses of people and convince them to join in. Replying the communist philosophy allowed the justification of the murder of millions doesn't help, the non-believer merely has to to agree and say the world would be better off with neither.

Similary when people point out the mistakes people have made believing God was telling them to do something (examples will range from GWs revelation regarding the Iraq war to drowning babies in tubs), the charge is very much that an action was motivated by a mistaken believe that God is guiding them, which is only possible if you believe in a personal God. Responding that other things have motivated other people completely misses the point, which is that a) having one less of these would be a good thing and b) many of the other things don't result in the same kind of epistemic closure making it easier to either change the minds of those doing the harm and/or reduce the influence of those doing the harm.

Only rarely is the you too fallacy a straw man. On the contrary, it's a fallacy because it responds to a straw man.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

It's funny how the atheists on this board love to #### bag Christians. But bring up Muslims or Jewish people they clam up.

I equally dislike all religions

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by 8 Ball

It's funny how the atheists on this board love to #### bag Christians. But bring up Muslims or Jewish people they clam up.

I was born a Christian, this is just as wrong as Muslims performing female genital mutilations and the Jewish forcing circumcision.

Mental Illness my ass, the churches are showing they're ill.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

I equally dislike all religions

Equally? Scientology = Buddhism ;-) of

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I was born a Christian, this is just as wrong as Muslims performing female genital mutilations and the Jewish forcing circumcision.

Mental Illness my ass, the churches are showing they're ill.

Muslims don't perform female mutilations. It's culturally done and some happen to be Muslims. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Muslims don't perform female mutilations. It's culturally done and some happen to be Muslims. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

It's impossible to simply separate culture and religion like that given religion is a major cultural influence and culture is has massive effect on how religion is practiced and understood. Even though it's not commanded by Islam, the practice more common among Muslims, even in countries where it's widely practiced by other religions too. It's not exclusively a Muslim thing, but it seems to get along with Islam particularly​ well.

[Mightyfire89]

Ahem, if I may, religion should have no place in a society where people think logically and attempt to make decisions that will benefit everyone without prejudice.

You people who hide behind religion are weak. Period.

You're not using your brains to their full capacity.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Muslims don't perform female mutilations. It's culturally done and some happen to be Muslims. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

I'll ask you this:

Are there other religions that are in favour of female genital mutilations?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

It's impossible to simply separate culture and religion like that given religion is a major cultural influence and culture is has massive effect on how religion is practiced and understood. Even though it's not commanded by Islam, the practice more common among Muslims, even in countries where it's widely practiced by other religions too. It's not exclusively a Muslim thing, but it seems to get along with Islam particularly​ well.

I don't see it like that. Muslim females aren't required to have their vagina mutilated and 99.9% of Muslims are against it and it's not in the Quran so how is it a religion thing? Culture and religion can be seperated and culture isn't just derived from religion unless you're saying atheists and the like can't have culture? It's very easy to seperate the two.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Mightyfire89

I'll ask you this:

Are there other religions that are in favour of female genital mutilations?

No religions are in favor of female mutilations and Islam actually condemns it.

To answer your question, yes Christians and Ethiopian Jews do it as well, notice the trend? It's mostly a cultural tradition carried out by Africans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...10570413000258

FGM is widely considered to be associated with Islam. However, during a conference held in Cairo/Egypt in 2006, Muslim scholars from various nations declared FGM to be un-islamic 8 and 9 and, in fact, the traditional cultural practice of FGM predates both Islam and Christianity.

[Mightyfire89]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

No religions are in favor of female mutilations and Islam actually condemns it.

To answer your question, yes Christians and Ethiopian Jews do it as well, notice the trend? It's mostly a cultural tradition carried out by Africans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...10570413000258

Islam condemns it...What the #### are you talking about? You clearly have no idea. There's no other religion that I know of other than Islam that advocates mutilating females genitals.

Response?