Edmonton Christian school: LGBQT's have mental illnesses

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Its funny how inclusiveness is a one way street. I'm not religious, wasn't brought up religious, but the irony of some of the idiotic posts in this thread. Liberalism is great as long as its where you get to selectively apply it to , amirite?

By one way street do you mean normal, healthy, non hateful people wanting the right to form a normal, healthy, non hateful club and be included? Or do you mean bigoted, hateful stupid people wanting to exclude others for bigoted, hateful and stupid reasons and still be included? It's just hard to tell because we live in a world where normal, healthy and non hateful should be encouraged. So if you mean the other people, the hateful schmucks of the world, then no. It's not ironic at all. Just sad that anyone would lament their lack of inclusion.

Religion is more than welcome to stop at love thy neighbor.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Its funny how inclusiveness is a one way street. I'm not religious, wasn't brought up religious, but the irony of some of the idiotic posts in this thread. Liberalism is great as long as its where you get to selectively apply it to , amirite?

That's a pretty hot take dude. How do you feel about transgender bathrooms?

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Its funny how inclusiveness is a one way street. I'm not religious, wasn't brought up religious, but the irony of some of the idiotic posts in this thread. Liberalism is great as long as it's where you get to selectively apply it to, amirite?

Inclusiveness applies to people not philosophies or religions that attempt to subjugate people who do not meet their standards for worthiness. One's right to swing their fist ends at the collective noses of others. People deserve respect; ideas deserve to be judged only on their merits.

[PepsiFree]

This always seems to be a difficult concept to grab for people. Inclusiveness is inclusive of all who are... you guessed it... inclusive.

Toxic hateful people who do not want to be inclusive (like the society in the article) are exempt. That sort of thing is not acceptable nor welcome. Religion is perfectly acceptable, so long as its followers ignore some of old text that promotes hate and exclusion. A large portion do, some don't. It's all seems simple to me. If you're accepting of others, you're acceptable to others.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This always seems to be a difficult concept to grab for people. Inclusiveness is inclusive of all who are... you guessed it... inclusive.

Toxic hateful people who do not want to be inclusive (like the society in the article) are exempt. That sort of thing is not acceptable nor welcome. Religion is perfectly acceptable, so long as its followers ignore some of old text that promotes hate and exclusion. A large portion do, some don't. It's all seems simple to me. If you're accepting of others, you're acceptable to others.

I don't think that's correct. Real inclusiveness includes everyone regardless of their faults and works to heal them. Including only those who include you leads to in and out groups

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't think that's correct. Real inclusiveness includes everyone regardless of their faults and works to heal them. Including only those who include you leads to in and out groups

Maybe we have a different definition then, because we're describing the same thing. Religious views CAN be acceptable, so long as they don't result in actions that preach the hate and exclusion of others. At that point, they are not acceptable, and need to be criticised and condemned (not happily accepted).

It's ideas, not people. I'm inclusive of baptists, they can believe whatever they want, but when they take actions like this that are hateful and exclusive it should be called out immediately. Hate and exclusion are not worthy of inclusion, because they're the opposite!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The distinction is between views and the people who hold them. People have rights and deserve dignity, regardless of what nonsense they believe. Ideas have and deserve none. Bad ideas, religious or otherwise, should be ruthlessly criticized and rejected.

[bubbsy]

Can we please keep religion out of our government and public institutions like public schools ??

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Yeah, those religious zealots Caesar, Mao, Stalin and Hitler.

https://richarddawkins.net/2014/10/t...talin-pol-pot/

“Besides that, I believe one thing: there is a Lord God! And this Lord God creates the peoples.” [1] ~Adolf Hitler
“We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations; we have stamped it out” [2]~Adolf Hitler


To begin, here are just a few of Hitler’s Christian confessions:
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.” [3]
“The greatness of Christianity did not arise from attempts to make compromises with those philosophical opinions of the ancient world which had some resemblance to its own doctrine, but in the unrelenting and fanatical proclamation and defense of its own teaching.” [4]


Prior to Constantine’s legitimization of the Christian religion in the fourth century, Christian anti-Semitism was confined to the canonical and non-canonical works of Christian authors and Church fathers. From the fifth century onward, the fantasies of the ante-Nicene fathers began to manifest into brutal violence.
In the first volume of my three volume book series, (I Am Christ), I trace the concentration camps of World War II all the way back to the Gospel of “John.” In that book, I said:
From all of the evidence available in the volumes of historical works, both Christian and non-Christian, it is clear that there is an unbroken chain of hatred, intolerance, and racism toward the Jews, which began with “John’s” Gospel (see also the Synoptic gospels) and continued all the way down into the twentieth century, ending with Hitler’s bloody campaign against the Church’s most despised enemies. [7]






Stalin was raised as a Christian under the religious influence of his mother, who enrolled him in seminary school, and that Stalin later took it upon himself to study for the priesthood, as Hitchens and others have pointed out, Stalin merely stepped into a ready-made religious tyranny, constructed by the Russian Orthodox Church and paved with the teachings of St. Paul.


Pol Pot, possibly not even an atheist, but almost certainly a Buddhist, believed in the teachings of the Buddha, no matter how perverted his interpretations may or may not have been. His violence, much like the violence of many earlier religionists, wasn’t the result of a lack of belief in a god, whether Zeus, Osiris, Yahweh, or the god-like Buddha of Mahayana Buddhism, but in the megalomaniacal belief that heaven or destiny was guiding him to improve the state of affairs for all those who could be forced to share his misguided utopian delusions. Not only was Pol Pot a Theravada Buddhist, but the soil in which his atrocities were sewn was also very Buddhist.


Caesar also looked at himself as a God and murdered those who disagreed. No discussion of his using atheism as an excuse.

[ynwa03]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Can we please keep religion out of our government and public institutions like public schools ??

That sure sounds inclusive.

[TheScorpion]

Hah, what a stupid school.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by ynwa03

That sure sounds inclusive.

It is inclusive as no one religion or philosophy would have the authority inherent in institutions such as government or education to become a policy driver where the worthiness of rights and freedoms for people is based upon core tenants of the faith held only by its subscribers.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Reaper

It is inclusive as no one religion or philosophy would have the authority inherent in institutions such as government or education to become a policy driver where the worthiness of rights and freedoms for people is based upon core tenants of the faith held only by its subscribers.

You had me up to tenants.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by GaiJin

Its funny how inclusiveness is a one way street. I'm not religious, wasn't brought up religious, but the irony of some of the idiotic posts in this thread. Liberalism is great as long as its where you get to selectively apply it to , amirite?

Like what?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

Can we please keep religion out of our government and public institutions like public schools ??

Completely agree

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You had me up to tenants.

We are all paying rent to the Bible

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

We are all paying rent to the Bible

Only because the landlord is Christian.

[Flames_Gimp]

it's disturbing to me that there are people walking around with these backwards beliefs.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

it's disturbing to me that there are people walking around with these backwards beliefs.

Must...resist...obvious...joke...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

This always seems to be a difficult concept to grab for people. Inclusiveness is inclusive of all who are... you guessed it... inclusive.

Toxic hateful people who do not want to be inclusive (like the society in the article) are exempt. That sort of thing is not acceptable nor welcome. Religion is perfectly acceptable, so long as its followers ignore some of old text that promotes hate and exclusion. A large portion do, some don't. It's all seems simple to me. If you're accepting of others, you're acceptable to others.

I believe he was referencing a few posts in this thread.