Obama the Defiler

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#61
Esanta, I've reported you to the mods. We're simply going in circles. I've refuted your false assertion with full explanation repeatedly and now you're just harassing me by clogging up my thread by repeating your false assertions ad infinitum. Unless you have something NEW to add, you should go troll elsewhere.

And, of course, you're engaging in yet more fallacious reasoning. Al Qaeda is an immoral violent terrorist organization that adheres to a false religious system and flawed rule of law and descriptive ethics contradicting normative morality in many ways. They are acting in violation to God's normative moral law as are people like yourself.

People like Al Qaeda behave as Satan in the guise of a roaring lion seeking whom they may devour while people like you spawn as deceitful Satanic "angels of light" attempting to mislead the ignorant and persecute the righteous (on behalf of the immoral).

It's not my fault you assert that immoral evil laws have to be foisted on moral people on behalf of immoral people and that it's OK to do this if the immoral evil laws are "common law" which really is but law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

People's natural human rights can be violated under common law just as they can be violated legislatively or executively. And that's the point: not to violate the human rights under natural [universal] law of the normatively moral on behalf of the immoral.

As I continue to repeat, immorality is not equitable to normative morality and since natural [universal] law is normatively moral originating from God and mirroring God's holiness it supersedes all other law regardless of the human system invoked to implement it (such as common law, for example).

Normative [universal] morality does not arise from a secular fallible body such as the United Nations via a common law system that either aligns with it or does not align with it to the extent it actually does or does not. As I have explained to you repeatedly, normative [universal] morality originates with holy Creator God of the universe and mirrors God's holiness.

Your faulty reasoning falsely asserts that normative [universal] morality can be displaced by wickedness as long as a common law system is employed to do it. That's why people like you are dangerous to moral people the world over who must give an account to holy Creator God for how they lived their life.

The fact that you confess that you are not confused but assert that normative [universal] morality can be displaced by wickedness in the world as long as a common law system is employed to do it is evidence that you are not ignorant but rather a wicked person.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#62
You may enjoy this post of mine: http://christianchat.com/christian-...ns-door-muslim-immigration-5.html#post1580225

The second part is full of nuggets. Here's one:

John Adams reflecting the majority view of the founders in regard to the place of the Bible in society when he writes:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region, should take the Bible for their only law-book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited!… What a Utopia; what a Paradise would this region be!" John Adams, Feb.22, 1756.

And the 110th Congress in 2008: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres888/text

That would be a miracle to see all turned around of being a moral country.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#63
Esanta, I've reported you to the mods. We're simply going in circles. I've refuted your false assertion with full explanation repeatedly and now you're just harassing me by clogging up my thread by repeating your false assertions ad infinitum. Unless you have something NEW to add, you should go troll elsewhere.

And, of course, you're engaging in yet more fallacious reasoning. Al Qaeda is an immoral violent terrorist organization that adheres to a false religious system and flawed rule of law and descriptive ethics contradicting normative morality in many ways. They are acting in violation to God's normative moral law as are people like yourself.

People like Al Qaeda behave as Satan in the guise of a roaring lion seeking whom they may devour while people like you spawn as deceitful Satanic "angels of light" attempting to mislead the ignorant and persecute the righteous (on behalf of the immoral).

It's not my fault you assert that immoral evil laws have to be foisted on moral people on behalf of immoral people and that it's OK to do this if the immoral evil laws are "common law" which really is but law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

People's natural human rights can be violated under common law just as they can be violated legislatively or executively. And that's the point: not to violate the human rights under natural [universal] law of the normatively moral on behalf of the immoral.

As I continue to repeat, immorality is not equitable to normative morality and since natural [universal] law is normatively moral originating from God and mirroring God's holiness it supersedes all other law regardless of the human system invoked to implement it (such as common law, for example).

Normative [universal] morality does not arise from a secular fallible body such as the United Nations via a common law system that either aligns with it or does not align with it to the extent it actually does or does not. As I have explained to you repeatedly, normative [universal] morality originates with holy Creator God of the universe and mirrors God's holiness.

Your faulty reasoning falsely asserts that normative [universal] morality can be displaced by wickedness as long as a common law system is employed to do it. That's why people like you are dangerous to moral people the world over who must give an account to holy Creator God for how they lived their life.

The fact that you confess that you are not confused but assert that normative [universal] morality can be displaced by wickedness in the world as long as a common law system is employed to do it is evidence that you are not ignorant but rather a wicked person.
But your basis for morality is one basis among an entire society of millions who base their morality on different things.

Normative morality is just morality by consensus - what is considered 'normal' varies from person to person. That's the point. One definitive religious standard isn't good enough for such a multicultural society of varied faiths and beliefs.

For instance, my personal basis for morality is reciprocity. What I wouldn't like to be done to me, so I endeavour not to do to anyone else. As I wouldn't like to be discriminated against, so I don't discriminate. And the idea of universal human rights hinges on this principle; that all people are equal.

A good leader has to instate secular laws that form at least some legal basis for this ideal of equality, in that every person in the land be treated likewise, regardless of their personal beliefs. Governments who govern multicultural societies should not instate laws that give some of the non-criminal population preference over other non-criminals in that population. That is why there are common laws for every person that give no exceptions in court on the basis of personal belief - a crime is a crime.

Your posts seem to drive this idea that non-Christians have no real basis for morality. The reality is that humans do have an intrinsic moral standard, built on human empathy. Countries create laws against murder, and let's face it, no person wants to be murdered. Countries create laws against physically harming others because nobody wants to be physically hurt by another person. Countries have created laws of equal opportunity amongst citizens because every person has a right to their beliefs and if every person were to be discriminated against for having those beliefs then society would regress into cliques and kangaroo courts.

The reality is that not everybody wants to be christian, and the choice not to be is their right in western society. You want to take that right to equality - to be treated just the same as a christian, muslim, jew or straight atheist is - from homosexuals and propagate social inequality, where a person can refuse a homosexual service or deny them their right to purchase goods, or their right to equal opportunity in employment simply because of their sexuality.

It won't make them become Christian to do so. It would just show the world how intolerant and biased you are.

Now, the specific argument against homosexual employment in this thread is that a homosexual shouldn't have the automatic right to work in a religious institution that stands against homosexuality on a moral level. I agree with you on that. The exception is when that institution takes government contractual funding, since a business owner who signs such a government contract will be bound like any other business who is contracted to represent the government in an unbiased manner - in other words, such an institution should not discriminate against anyone, because the government themselves do not discriminate in who they employ on the basis of sexual preference. To be contracted by the government and deny homosexuals employment goes against the government's employment standards.

That seems fair to me. I fully agree that a self-funding religious institution should not have to employ homosexuals since homosexuals are directly acting against that institution's interests, but I do not agree that a government contracted institution should be allowed to openly discriminate.

That isn't to say I'm wicked.

You strike me as a person who believes that only your bible can offer the solutions to the world's moral problems, in that humans are incapable of morality without it, and without it the world would crumble to ashes. I imagine you think humans are incapable of wanting a moral, empathetic life unless a God demands that they live that way. The reality is that an empathetic life is good for a person's psychological well-being. It is good for their relations with others, for the sake of a clean conscience, for the sake of understanding others and having universal compassion toward others; it is good for the sake of the public society.

In a society where people have the right to believe whatever they want it would be biased and unlawful to disallow a homosexual to join an institution contracted to the government. However, if the institution self-funds and its purpose is to promote a particular religious ideal, then hiring a homosexual is against the very mission of that business, thus I agree that it shouldn't be forced.

Allowing others the freedoms I would allow myself is not wickedness, it's the perpetuation of equality and fairness in a society wherein many people believe many different things.

If it were you being discriminated because you were Christian when you tried to join a humanitarian group, I'd be saying the same things I'm saying here. It isn't fair to discriminate against someone because of their personal beliefs in a multicultural society. Every person's beliefs are different.
 
Last edited:
J

J-Kay-2

Guest
#64
You may enjoy this post of mine: http://christianchat.com/christian-...ns-door-muslim-immigration-5.html#post1580225

The second part is full of nuggets. Here's one:

John Adams reflecting the majority view of the founders in regard to the place of the Bible in society when he writes:

"Suppose a nation in some distant region, should take the Bible for their only law-book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited!… What a Utopia; what a Paradise would this region be!" John Adams, Feb.22, 1756.

And the 110th Congress in 2008: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres888/text

Pardon me Age of Knowledge: I started the Thread : Michigan opens doors to Muslim Immigration.
Then you picked up this new one based on the topic.... Obama defiler.....
I was glad when you picked up because I was ready to report to moderators as well. I got tired
of going around in circles. But I hesitated because I knew she would be reported soon. They
could not let that go on. ~ JK~2
 
J

J-Kay-2

Guest
#65
Esanta, I've reported you to the mods. We're simply going in circles. I've refuted your false assertion with full explanation repeatedly and now you're just harassing me by clogging up my thread by repeating your false assertions ad infinitum. Unless you have something NEW to add, you should go troll elsewhere.

And, of course, you're engaging in yet more fallacious reasoning. Al Qaeda is an immoral violent terrorist organization that adheres to a false religious system and flawed rule of law and descriptive ethics contradicting normative morality in many ways. They are acting in violation to God's normative moral law as are people like yourself.

People like Al Qaeda behave as Satan in the guise of a roaring lion seeking whom they may devour while people like you spawn as deceitful Satanic "angels of light" attempting to mislead the ignorant and persecute the righteous (on behalf of the immoral).

It's not my fault you assert that immoral evil laws have to be foisted on moral people on behalf of immoral people and that it's OK to do this if the immoral evil laws are "common law" which really is but law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

People's natural human rights can be violated under common law just as they can be violated legislatively or executively. And that's the point: not to violate the human rights under natural [universal] law of the normatively moral on behalf of the immoral.

As I continue to repeat, immorality is not equitable to normative morality and since natural [universal] law is normatively moral originating from God and mirroring God's holiness it supersedes all other law regardless of the human system invoked to implement it (such as common law, for example).

Normative [universal] morality does not arise from a secular fallible body such as the United Nations via a common law system that either aligns with it or does not align with it to the extent it actually does or does not. As I have explained to you repeatedly, normative [universal] morality originates with holy Creator God of the universe and mirrors God's holiness.

Your faulty reasoning falsely asserts that normative [universal] morality can be displaced by wickedness as long as a common law system is employed to do it. That's why people like you are dangerous to moral people the world over who must give an account to holy Creator God for how they lived their life.

The fact that you confess that you are not confused but assert that normative [universal] morality can be displaced by wickedness in the world as long as a common law system is employed to do it is evidence that you are not ignorant but rather a wicked person.

There many spirits at work. When one comes in to take over a Christian site and
the focus off Christ... usually you will find it to be a jezebel spirit. Jezebels will be
controlling. Often people mistaken them as one who is luring another into a lustful
situation. NOT. It turns out that spirit works in men as well. Anytime one wants to take
over a forum is considered a controller. There is no getting ahead with that type
and if they are not here to learn, then they usually are removed. God bless for trying
to help her... You did put a lot of time and some great info. Blessings...
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#66
That's true. Borneo headhunters base their morality of murder on animistic demonic revelation. So do African witch doctors. Etc...

But it's OK in your view because "'normal' varies from person to person and that's the point" and "normative morality is just morality by consensus." Obviously not. You need to educate yourself instead of blathering false assertions, false definitions, and a colossal ignorance all over this thread as you've been doing.

The term “morality” can be used descriptively for conduct put forward by a society, group, or individual (this type of morality aligns with or contradicts actual truth to whatever extent it does or does not); or normatively for conduct by all rational persons (this carries a universal sense and is not the conduct by mere consensus that you falsely claim it is); OR (and pay attention) the objective normative morality of God Himself rooted in objective and absolute truth. The latter is the definition I have been using because it's the one that aligns perfectly with truth.

A person of average intelligence need only spend an afternooon in a public library's history section to figure out that moral subjectivism fails logically, socially, historically, philosophically, etc... Obviously there is an objective difference between a Christian pastor praying that God will help a parishioner that aligns with God's normative morality and a witch doctor invoking demonic spirits to curse someone in opposition to it.

Obviously the "intrinsic moral standard built on human empathy" as you call it has failed humanity throughout the course of human history from pagan ritualized human sacrifice to human enslavement to occultic pagan genocide to humanist state atheists engaging in sweeping democide and genocide over much of the world as they did just last century (e.g. the 20th century).

But what "intrinsic moral standard built on human empathy" that remains of humanity's Imago Dei in the unregenerate state, you aren't even competent enough to source correctly (e.g. God). I won't burden you with the contribution of the regenerate repentant yet because you're obviously not ready.

God's normative morality is in perfect alignment with His holiness and righteousness (e.g. God's objective and absolute justice or rightness) which is an intrinsic characteristic of God wherein He is the ultimate standard of just and right actions and because of which He must ultimately punish all unjust and evil acts.

Does that sound like "just morality by consensus" of a bunch of ignorant and immoral people? Of course not. You obviously do not have the slightest clue that an epistemological precondition for truth exists. You think that truth is whatever a person or a group of people fancies it to be, rightly or wrongly, rather than what it actually is.

So while the root of your problem is ignorance, the root of the problem of your argument is relativism. Truth is found in correspondence. Truth is what corresponds to its object (referent), whether this object is abstract or concrete. As applied to the world, truth is the way things really are. Of course, there can be truth about abstract realities as well as tangible realities.

For example, there are mathematical truths, and there are also truths about ideas. Truth is what accurately expresses these states of affairs, whatever they may be. By contrast, falsehood is that which does not correspond to its referent (object). Falsehood is a misrepresentation of the way things are. Statements are false if they are mistaken, even if the speaker intended to say the correct things.

When you state that there is no objective truth or basis for objective truth, you make a false assertion. When you state that truth is whatever a person or group of people decide it is, you make a false assertion. When you state that diametrically opposed truth assertions; whether they be religious or not, are true; you make a false assertion. But you make ALL of these false assertions. That's how far removed from the truth you are. For not only is truth correspondence: truth is also absolute.

Truth doesn't change because you think it should, your beliefs about what is true change, or because people have differing views with respect to the truth. All truth is absolute, there are no relative truths. If something really is true, then it really is true everywhere and for everyone. 7+3=10 is not just true for mathematics majors, it's true everywhere. People align or fail to align with absolute truth and both posit consequence.

Expressed truth is what corresponds to its object. To deny this is self defeating, since to deny assumes that one's denial corresponds to the facts. Likewise, the noncorrespondence view, like the relative view of truth, is self-defeating. The relativism of truth cannot be affirmed as truth unless relativism is false; it is absurd to affirm that it is objectively true for all that truth is not objectively true for all. Absolute truth is literally undeniable.

A good leader should be aligning their policies with truth (which is objective and absolute) not in opposition to them as you falsely assert. A nation's common law, legislative law, and executive law should ALL align with truth not in opposition to it. Otherwise a real crime may not be codified as a crime (or carry an unfair penality) and what isn't actually a crime may become a crime (such as the government attempting to force Christians to condone, facilitate, and engage in immoral behaviors at the behest of immoral people). See how this works Einstein? Just the opposite of the way you think it should.

My posts reject your relativist basis for morality because relativism itself is false and historically led to sweeping democide and persecution of normatively moral people who often established kangaroo courts to exercise common law to persecute, rob, and even murder them. These existed in pagan antiquity, in corrupt theocracies, and all over the world just last century under secular humanist state atheism.

And it's not material to this discussion if "not everybody wants to be a Christian" because nobody ever said that they did. Not once. What we're discussing is the immoral use of government on behalf of groups of immoral people to violate the human right to a free moral conscience and the religious liberty toward God's own normative morality of Christian people and their Christian organizations.

You're the guilty perpetrator not the Christians being victimized. You're the one discriminating against them and violating God's normative morality in the process. If it's "wrong" to force people who choose to engage in sexual immorality (e.g. homosexuality, pedaphilia, beastility, etc...) to adopt God's normative morality, then it certainly IS wrong to force godly normatively moral people to adopt blatant sexual immorality. You're the immoral, defiling, discriminatory tyrant, not the other way around.

Obviously, it is wrong to force moral people to accept and facilitate your immorality (or the immorality of others). The fact that you tyranically seek to do it using government while simultaneously asserting that it's wrong for moral people to force their morality on immoral people reveals that you're a tyrannical hypocrite.

As I've repeated to you many times, immorality is not equitable to morality. An embezzler doesn't have a right to defile a banking institution and impede their mission with his immoral behavior and can be fired for it and also barred by another employer for it as well (according to the common law). But an honest person has a right to work in a banking organization. And why not, their behavior is moral making them an asset not a detriment to the mission of the organization.

And the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees, as they should, and as I explained to you repeatedly in their recent ruling. Note their terminology: "not only preaching but teaching and carrying out a religious group’s mission."

Religious organizations cannot be forced to hire homosexuals, pedaphiliacs, people who have sex with animals, etc... per de facto common law as they defile the organization and impede it from accomplishing its mission. Nor should they per God's normative de jure morality.

This means Obama's unilateral executive order is in conflict with recent Supreme Court ruling for it bars religious organizations from "carrying out a religious group's mission [on or off their private property]" by forcing them to deny their mission unless they seek out, hire, and promote individuals whose beliefs and immoral behaviors run counter to the religious group's godly normative morality which is inherent to their mission... the very heart of the Supreme Court ruling that religious organizations (e.g. churches, religious schools, religious employers) cannot be deprived in that way under the
Constitution of the United States whether or not you or Obama says the government can or not.

The fact you lionize an executive order (e.g. executive law) over the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. common law) while simultaneously arguing for the supremacy of common law only adds another layer of contradictory hypocrisy to your untenable position.


But your basis for morality is one basis among an entire society of millions who base their morality on different things.

Normative morality is just morality by consensus - what is considered 'normal' varies from person to person. That's the point. One definitive religious standard isn't good enough for such a multicultural society of varied faiths and beliefs.

For instance, my personal basis for morality is reciprocity. What I wouldn't like to be done to me, so I endeavour not to do to anyone else. As I wouldn't like to be discriminated against, so I don't discriminate. And the idea of universal human rights hinges on this principle; that all people are equal.

A good leader has to instate secular laws that form at least some legal basis for this ideal of equality, in that every person in the land be treated likewise, regardless of their personal beliefs. Governments who govern multicultural societies should not instate laws that give some of the non-criminal population preference over other non-criminals in that population. That is why there are common laws for every person that give no exceptions in court on the basis of personal belief - a crime is a crime.

Your posts seem to drive this idea that non-Christians have no real basis for morality. The reality is that humans do have an intrinsic moral standard, built on human empathy. Countries create laws against murder, and let's face it, no person wants to be murdered. Countries create laws against physically harming others because nobody wants to be physically hurt by another person. Countries have created laws of equal opportunity amongst citizens because every person has a right to their beliefs and if every person were to be discriminated against for having those beliefs then society would regress into cliques and kangaroo courts.

The reality is that not everybody wants to be christian, and the choice not to be is their right in western society. You want to take that right to equality - to be treated just the same as a christian, muslim, jew or straight atheist is - from homosexuals and propagate social inequality, where a person can refuse a homosexual service or deny them their right to purchase goods, or their right to equal opportunity in employment simply because of their sexuality.

It won't make them become Christian to do so. It would just show the world how intolerant and biased you are.

Now, the specific argument against homosexual employment in this thread is that a homosexual shouldn't have the automatic right to work in a religious institution that stands against homosexuality on a moral level. I agree with you on that. The exception is when that institution takes government contractual funding, since a business owner who signs such a government contract will be bound like any other business who is contracted to represent the government in an unbiased manner - in other words, such an institution should not discriminate against anyone, because the government themselves do not discriminate in who they employ on the basis of sexual preference. To be contracted by the government and deny homosexuals employment goes against the government's employment standards.

That seems fair to me. I fully agree that a self-funding religious institution should not have to employ homosexuals since homosexuals are directly acting against that institution's interests, but I do not agree that a government contracted institution should be allowed to openly discriminate.

That isn't to say I'm wicked.

You strike me as a person who believes that only your bible can offer the solutions to the world's moral problems, in that humans are incapable of morality without it, and without it the world would crumble to ashes. I imagine you think humans are incapable of wanting a moral, empathetic life unless a God demands that they live that way. The reality is that an empathetic life is good for a person's psychological well-being. It is good for their relations with others, for the sake of a clean conscience, for the sake of understanding others and having universal compassion toward others; it is good for the sake of the public society.

In a society where people have the right to believe whatever they want it would be biased and unlawful to disallow a homosexual to join an institution contracted to the government. However, if the institution self-funds and its purpose is to promote a particular religious ideal, then hiring a homosexual is against the very mission of that business, thus I agree that it shouldn't be forced.

Allowing others the freedoms I would allow myself is not wickedness, it's the perpetuation of equality and fairness in a society wherein many people believe many different things.

If it were you being discriminated because you were Christian when you tried to join a humanitarian group, I'd be saying the same things I'm saying here. It isn't fair to discriminate against someone because of their personal beliefs in a multicultural society. Every person's beliefs are different.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#67
Executive orders have been overriding constitutional amendments for a long time now. In case you haven't notice the presidents that have been in office every since at least I can remember, from Regan to now have slowly made orders, laws, and adjustments to slowly override or do away with the constitutional amendments.

There are tons of laws rather be federal or state that are against our constitutional rights, but we have to follow them cause they are our governments laws.

Sorry Ken, an executive order cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. You are going to lose this argument.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
42,558
17,027
113
69
Tennessee
#68
Sorry Ken, an executive order cannot overturn a constitutional amendment. You are going to lose this argument.
You are most correct. The president may act like a king but he will be dethroned 1/20/17 @ 12 noon.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#69
That's true. Borneo headhunters base their morality of murder on animistic demonic revelation. So do African witch doctors. Etc...

But it's OK in your view because "'normal' varies from person to person and that's the point" and "normative morality is just morality by consensus." Obviously not. You need to educate yourself instead of blathering false assertions, false definitions, and a colossal ignorance all over this thread as you've been doing.

The term “morality” can be used descriptively for conduct put forward by a society, group, or individual (this type of morality aligns with or contradicts actual truth to whatever extent it does or does not); or normatively for conduct by all rational persons (this carries a universal sense and is not the conduct by mere consensus that you falsely claim it is); OR (and pay attention) the objective normative morality of God Himself rooted in objective and absolute truth. The latter is the definition I have been using because it's the one that aligns perfectly with truth.

A person of average intelligence need only spend an afternooon in a public library's history section to figure out that moral subjectivism fails logically, socially, historically, philosophically, etc... Obviously there is an objective difference between a Christian pastor praying that God will help a parishioner that aligns with God's normative morality and a witch doctor invoking demonic spirits to curse someone in opposition to it.

Obviously the "intrinsic moral standard built on human empathy" as you call it has failed humanity throughout the course of human history from pagan ritualized human sacrifice to human enslavement to occultic pagan genocide to humanist state atheists engaging in sweeping democide and genocide over much of the world as they did just last century (e.g. the 20th century).

But what "intrinsic moral standard built on human empathy" that remains of humanity's Imago Dei in the unregenerate state, you aren't even competent enough to source correctly (e.g. God). I won't burden you with the contribution of the regenerate repentant yet because you're obviously not ready.

God's normative morality is in perfect alignment with His holiness and righteousness (e.g. God's objective and absolute justice or rightness) which is an intrinsic characteristic of God wherein He is the ultimate standard of just and right actions and because of which He must ultimately punish all unjust and evil acts.

Does that sound like "just morality by consensus" of a bunch of ignorant and immoral people? Of course not. You obviously do not have the slightest clue that an epistemological precondition for truth exists. You think that truth is whatever a person or a group of people fancies it to be, rightly or wrongly, rather than what it actually is.

So while the root of your problem is ignorance, the root of the problem of your argument is relativism. Truth is found in correspondence. Truth is what corresponds to its object (referent), whether this object is abstract or concrete. As applied to the world, truth is the way things really are. Of course, there can be truth about abstract realities as well as tangible realities.

For example, there are mathematical truths, and there are also truths about ideas. Truth is what accurately expresses these states of affairs, whatever they may be. By contrast, falsehood is that which does not correspond to its referent (object). Falsehood is a misrepresentation of the way things are. Statements are false if they are mistaken, even if the speaker intended to say the correct things.

When you state that there is no objective truth or basis for objective truth, you make a false assertion. When you state that truth is whatever a person or group of people decide it is, you make a false assertion. When you state that diametrically opposed truth assertions; whether they be religious or not, are true; you make a false assertion. But you make ALL of these false assertions. That's how far removed from the truth you are. For not only is truth correspondence: truth is also absolute.

Truth doesn't change because you think it should, your beliefs about what is true change, or because people have differing views with respect to the truth. All truth is absolute, there are no relative truths. If something really is true, then it really is true everywhere and for everyone. 7+3=10 is not just true for mathematics majors, it's true everywhere. People align or fail to align with absolute truth and both posit consequence.

Expressed truth is what corresponds to its object. To deny this is self defeating, since to deny assumes that one's denial corresponds to the facts. Likewise, the noncorrespondence view, like the relative view of truth, is self-defeating. The relativism of truth cannot be affirmed as truth unless relativism is false; it is absurd to affirm that it is objectively true for all that truth is not objectively true for all. Absolute truth is literally undeniable.

A good leader should be aligning their policies with truth (which is objective and absolute) not in opposition to them as you falsely assert. A nation's common law, legislative law, and executive law should ALL align with truth not in opposition to it. Otherwise a real crime may not be codified as a crime (or carry an unfair penality) and what isn't actually a crime may become a crime (such as the government attempting to force Christians to condone, facilitate, and engage in immoral behaviors at the behest of immoral people). See how this works Einstein? Just the opposite of the way you think it should.

My posts reject your relativist basis for morality because relativism itself is false and historically led to sweeping democide and persecution of normatively moral people who often established kangaroo courts to exercise common law to persecute, rob, and even murder them. These existed in pagan antiquity, in corrupt theocracies, and all over the world just last century under secular humanist state atheism.

And it's not material to this discussion if "not everybody wants to be a Christian" because nobody ever said that they did. Not once. What we're discussing is the immoral use of government on behalf of groups of immoral people to violate the human right to a free moral conscience and the religious liberty toward God's own normative morality of Christian people and their Christian organizations.

You're the guilty perpetrator not the Christians being victimized. You're the one discriminating against them and violating God's normative morality in the process. If it's "wrong" to force people who choose to engage in sexual immorality (e.g. homosexuality, pedaphilia, beastility, etc...) to adopt God's normative morality, then it certainly IS wrong to force godly normatively moral people to adopt blatant sexual immorality. You're the immoral, defiling, discriminatory tyrant, not the other way around.

Obviously, it is wrong to force moral people to accept and facilitate your immorality (or the immorality of others). The fact that you tyranically seek to do it using government while simultaneously asserting that it's wrong for moral people to force their morality on immoral people reveals that you're a tyrannical hypocrite.

As I've repeated to you many times, immorality is not equitable to morality. An embezzler doesn't have a right to defile a banking institution and impede their mission with his immoral behavior and can be fired for it and also barred by another employer for it as well (according to the common law). But an honest person has a right to work in a banking organization. And why not, their behavior is moral making them an asset not a detriment to the mission of the organization.

And the Supreme Court of the U.S. agrees, as they should, and as I explained to you repeatedly in their recent ruling. Note their terminology: "not only preaching but teaching and carrying out a religious group’s mission."

Religious organizations cannot be forced to hire homosexuals, pedaphiliacs, people who have sex with animals, etc... per de facto common law as they defile the organization and impede it from accomplishing its mission. Nor should they per God's normative de jure morality.

This means Obama's unilateral executive order is in conflict with recent Supreme Court ruling for it bars religious organizations from "carrying out a religious group's mission [on or off their private property]" by forcing them to deny their mission unless they seek out, hire, and promote individuals whose beliefs and immoral behaviors run counter to the religious group's godly normative morality which is inherent to their mission... the very heart of the Supreme Court ruling that religious organizations (e.g. churches, religious schools, religious employers) cannot be deprived in that way under the
Constitution of the United States whether or not you or Obama says the government can or not.

The fact you lionize an executive order (e.g. executive law) over the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. common law) while simultaneously arguing for the supremacy of common law only adds another layer of contradictory hypocrisy to your untenable position.
AgeOfKnowledge, the amount of time you spent on that was pointless. You could have summed up with a quick 'I believe the Bible's morals are the most objective and true morality that exists', and I could have replied 'funny thing that - cause there happen to be christians who disagree on the bible's very moral message; day in, day out'.

The 'objective, normative' morality of the christian God seems to be rather subjective to the individual who reads the bible.

Thus, even your idea of total Godly morality becomes a subjective idea - the conclusions become dependant upon each individual reader's perspective.

Subjective morality is the only morality that really exists, AgeOfKnowledge - that's why we get Christians from the crusades thinking it's okay to slaughter people, the same reason we now get christians who believe in total non-violence. Every person reads that bible with a different perspective and most people get slightly different answers, some get wildly varying conclusions, and the only benchmark for which conclusion is more right or wrong than another lies in traditions, common consensus and popular opinion.

It's funny that you're arguing against a morality based on human empathy rather than objectively defined dogmatic statutes, because the golden moral rule of almost every major religion is 'consider others as yourself' - including yours.

That's what empathy is.

You can't assert that there's a total moral truth that you possess knowledge of (from the bible) without recognizing that there are over a billion people under the Christian heading who think likewise, yet carry specific outlooks on God that can vary tremendously compared to yours. Do you have the whole truth and nothing but the truth, AgeOfKnowledge? Cause if you do, you best get in line behind the other hundred-odd Christian people that've told me that. Some of them even thought being homosexual should be allowed in secular law - 'live and let live'.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#70
Regardless, here's an easy end to this charade; I agree that self-funded religious institutions, who have not signed any government contracts and not thereby received government financial sponsorship, should not have to employ people who blatantly go against their religious ideals.

I also agree that if the government contracts any institution, and thereby sponsors said institution financially, that said institution should welcome homosexuals with open arms so as to corroborate with the equal opportunities policy of the government.

There.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#71
So in addition to all the many false assertions you've made, you're also going to malign what I've said and do it fallaciously in the form of a straw man. Absurd.

In your relativism, Greek pederasty is "moral" because immoral people decided it was. In your relativism, homosexuality is moral because immoral people have decided it is. You pick and choose which immoral behaviors are "moral" and then attempt to force them on moral people while hypocritically asserting that it's immoral for moral people to force their normative morality (something you've shown you either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent) on immoral people.

So far, and this isn't name calling but just an accurate definition based on your own statements, you've identified as an immoral, deceived, hypocritical tyrant.

Now you're also showing that you're no theologian.... not even competent to the point of being able to discern what a genuine Christian is from a professing Christian though the manual to tell the difference can be had in about two minutes by going to biblehub.com.

And, never having taken a logic class in your entire life (yes it's painfully obvious), you don't even know that the presence of disagreement does not invalidate the possibility of truth.

And since you're false assertion of subjective moralism and relativism have been scholarly refuted using scholarly sources (which you never even had the intelligence to ask for because you were too busy prattling on about your feelings on the topic), repeating your false assertions only shows that you're recalcitrant too.

But I'll waste another minute on you as it might help someone else reading this. One doesn't need to know all truth absolutely for absolute certainty is possible of some things. For those whom God has manifested Himself to (obviously not you though you have His revelation at your fingertips), one can be absolutely sure that God exists.

And one's own existence is undeniable. One would have to exist in order to make the statement "I do not exist." One can also be absolutely sure that he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Just as he can be certain, for example,
that there are no square circles.

Of course, there are many more things of which absolute certainty is not possible. But even here relativists like yourself miss the mark in rejecting absolute truth simply because of the lack of absolute evidence that some things are true, for they fail to recognize that the truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it are. For instance, if it is true that Sydney, Australia, is next to the ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be.

An absolute truth is absolutely true in and of itself no matter what evidence there is for it. Evidence (or the lack thereon does not change the facts. And truth is what corresponds to the facts. The truth doesn't change simply because we learn something more about it.


AgeOfKnowledge, the amount of time you spent on that was pointless. You could have summed up with a quick 'I believe the Bible's morals are the most objective and true morality that exists', and I could have replied 'funny thing that - cause there happen to be christians who disagree on the bible's very moral message; day in, day out'.

The 'objective, normative' morality of the christian God seems to be rather subjective to the individual who reads the bible.

Thus, even your idea of total Godly morality becomes a subjective idea - the conclusions become dependant upon each individual reader's perspective.

Subjective morality is the only morality that really exists, AgeOfKnowledge - that's why we get Christians from the crusades thinking it's okay to slaughter people, the same reason we now get christians who believe in total non-violence. Every person reads that bible with a different perspective and most people get slightly different answers, some get wildly varying conclusions, and the only benchmark for which conclusion is more right or wrong than another lies in traditions, common consensus and popular opinion.

It's funny that you're arguing against a morality based on human empathy rather than objectively defined dogmatic statutes, because the golden moral rule of almost every major religion is 'consider others as yourself' - including yours.

That's what empathy is.

You can't assert that there's a total moral truth that you possess knowledge of (from the bible) without recognizing that there are over a billion people under the Christian heading who think likewise, yet carry specific outlooks on God that can vary tremendously compared to yours. Do you have the whole truth and nothing but the truth, AgeOfKnowledge? Cause if you do, you best get in line behind the other hundred-odd Christian people that've told me that. Some of them even thought being homosexual should be allowed in secular law - 'live and let live'.
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#72
The only charade is the one you've been performing. You say that you recognize that self-funded religious institutions should not have to employ people that violate their religious epistemology.

But you have no problem hypocritically denying religious institutions that adhere to the Christian normative morality the nation was largely founded on access to government funding (unless they violate their religious epistemology which would be you violating their human rights and religious liberty), even when they earn it through a legitimate exchange of service as occurs with government contracting, while making government funding available to immoral organizations founded on sexually immoral behaviors the government was never founded on that exist to propagate their sexual immorality exactly as if they were religious institutions whether they earn it or not (e.g. grants, etc...).

What an immoral, hypocritical, and tyrannical position it is that you hold.


Regardless, here's an easy end to this charade; I agree that self-funded religious institutions, who have not signed any government contracts and not thereby received government financial sponsorship, should not have to employ people who blatantly go against their religious ideals.

I also agree that if the government contracts any institution, and thereby sponsors said institution financially, that said institution should welcome homosexuals with open arms so as to corroborate with the equal opportunities policy of the government.

There.
 
O

oldernotwiser

Guest
#73
The defiler's unilateral decree affects every Christian who owns a business that contracts with the federal government.

Furthermore, religious organizations that contract with the government to provide social services such as adoption assistance, disaster relief, health care navigation, preschool education, drug rehabilitation and prison ministry, are now required to seek out and hire practicing homosexuals who espouse homosexuality and the homosexual agenda and promote them into leadership in blatant contradiction to their organizational statement of beliefs and convictions, personal consciences, and the historical orthodox religious exegesis and epistemologies the organizations were founded on, that guides their organizations, and which they must adhere to if they are to be authentic.

One could make a secular analogy that it's like forcing pacifist organizations to hire unrepentant murderers that espouse violence as normal and whom claim it as their identity and promote them into leadership of the pacifist organizations.

But, it's actually a lot worse because God and His Word are involved so what we see is Obama attempting to defile Christian organizations that adhere to God's holy biblical standard and a normative morality with immoral people that do not.

As Jesus pointed out in Mark 3:25, "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand."

Satan and his minion Obama the defiler are executing this tactic to corrupt and divide Christian organizations committed to being salt and light in the world.

It's an intractable violation of their human rights, a violation of their religious liberty, and an antichrist attack of the devil to corrupt godly Christian organizations.
i doubt that the mennonite central committee would ever look for a government contract.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#74
So in addition to all the many false assertions you've made, you're also going to malign what I've said and do it fallaciously in the form of a straw man. Absurd.

In your relativism, Greek pederasty is "moral" because immoral people decided it was. In your relativism, homosexuality is moral because immoral people have decided it is. You pick and choose which immoral behaviors are "moral" and then attempt to force them on moral people while hypocritically asserting that it's immoral for moral people to force their normative morality (something you've shown you either do not understand or deliberately misrepresent) on immoral people.

So far, and this isn't name calling but just an accurate definition based on your own statements, you've identified as an immoral, deceived, hypocritical tyrant.

Now you're also showing that you're no theologian.... not even competent to the point of being able to discern what a genuine Christian is from a professing Christian though the manual to tell the difference can be had in about two minutes by going to biblehub.com.

And, never having taken a logic class in your entire life (yes it's painfully obvious), you don't even know that the presence of disagreement does not invalidate the possibility of truth.

And since you're false assertion of subjective moralism and relativism have been scholarly refuted using scholarly sources (which you never even had the intelligence to ask for because you were too busy prattling on about your feelings on the topic), repeating your false assertions only shows that you're recalcitrant too.

But I'll waste another minute on you as it might help someone else reading this. One doesn't need to know all truth absolutely for absolute certainty is possible of some things. For those whom God has manifested Himself to (obviously not you though you have His revelation at your fingertips), one can be absolutely sure that God exists.

And one's own existence is undeniable. One would have to exist in order to make the statement "I do not exist." One can also be absolutely sure that he cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. Just as he can be certain, for example,
that there are no square circles.

Of course, there are many more things of which absolute certainty is not possible. But even here relativists like yourself miss the mark in rejecting absolute truth simply because of the lack of absolute evidence that some things are true, for they fail to recognize that the truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it are. For instance, if it is true that Sydney, Australia, is next to the ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be.

An absolute truth is absolutely true in and of itself no matter what evidence there is for it. Evidence (or the lack thereon does not change the facts. And truth is what corresponds to the facts. The truth doesn't change simply because we learn something more about it.
Let's get something straight here. Morality is something concerned with the principals of right and wrong behaviour. Now, you assert that there is an objective, total moral framework imparted upon a true believer. This is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman argument. What constitutes a true believer is incredibly difficult, in fact almost impossible, to practically define in that the definition of a true Christian itself is disputed among Christians, meaning that many Christians struggle to even define what a Christian is - thus reaching different conclusions.

The word 'believer' itself denotes that a person have personal faith in a particular thing's validity. Now, it is obviously true that the belief that there is water on Earth is a true belief, in that it can be observed, testified to with evidence, and thus validated as true. Water is everywhere, we drink it, we use it, and our oceans are filled with it. Yet you argue that because observation of Sydney's geographical location, or observation of the water near it, are objective and verifiable truths that there is also an objective and total moral truth, the existence of which can be asserted based on the premise of the easy validation of observed geography. You fail to recognize that this analogy doesn't work because morality is in itself something internally cognitive. To show up how ridiculous this argument is; we don't walk down the street, see morality running into our street drains and say 'oh look, it's objective morality', but we do see water running and can say 'look, it's water'.

Particularly where religions are concerned, belief in a very specific religious moral viewpoint is especially subjective, not objective, as evidenced by the many discrepancies in individual Christian beliefs. Yet, those sometimes wildly varying beliefs all come under the heading 'Christianity', which is itself defined as the 'religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or in its beliefs and practices'. The scope of particular interpretations within 'Christianity' as a whole include some 41,000 different denominations. The definition of denomination itself is 'the emphasizing of denominational differences to the point of being narrowly exclusive'.

Thus your assertion that there exists a singular and total truth within Christianity must conclude one of three things in light of the evidence of denominationalism:

1. Only one denomination of Christianity holds the entirely correct view.
2. Many of these denominations hold a central truth but hold fallacies in specific areas.
3. All types of Christianity are simultaneously true.

And any one of these last two conclusions completely nullify your assertion that an exact moral Christian truth exists, at least on a practical level insofar as the followers of the religion are concerned. The second conclusion shows that the truths held by the individual Christians are not complete or all encompassing - fallacies exist. The third conclusion shows that the basis for Christian truth is a paradox - the 'Christian' can himself or herself be contradictory things to another 'Christian', thus the basis for what constitutes a 'Christian' cannot be established, and inconsistent premises make any argument arguable. And lastly, the first argument narrows the truth down to a single specific denominational belief out of around 41,000 sects, so unless you are utterly sure which one of those denominations holds that truth, then you may very well not be a part of it.

Thus the objective total morality of the bible is very difficult to define. As far as practicality and the reality of the entire Christian demographic is concerned, we can't currently define a complete and total objective Christian moral framework which can be unanimously validated like the existence of water can. Each one of those denominations holds a subjective opinion on the teachings of Christ and on what those teachings constitute, how they should be viewed and what is inherently right or wrong - yet every one of those peeople, just like you, believe that they 'have the spirit' and know the objective reality of the true Godly morality.

Let's get something else straight, I believe that morality is subjective insofar as how people actually come to moral conclusions. You come to your conclusions because of your conditioning, just like someone else comes to theirs. That is not to say that I think any old morality is acceptable, much less beneficial or worthy of adherence. For instance, I could certainly understand how a person who grew up being raped by her father viewed the death penalty for paedophiles as a morally valid, righteous principle of law that should be upheld and enforced. But just because I understand something, does not mean that I condone it.

Understanding that subjective conditionings lead to subjective conclusions (that every person's life experiences are different and lead them to different beliefs about the world) is not in any way evidence that I agree with a particular person's definitions of what is right and wrong. I simply understand that subjective circumstances led them to the beliefs they hold.

A great example of condition and circumstance leading to personal conclusions are this; if you had never come across those who inspired you to God, or had never been in whatever moment wherein you discovered God, you would not have discovered him. That argument cannot be refuted. If you never had a moment of time wherein you saw God, you would not have seen him.

1-1 = 0.

Now that has ramifications. It means that your belief in God is, for all intents and purposes, a result of the experiences wherein you came to, or validated, that belief in him. Whether it be that you read the bible and saw in it some universal eternal wisdom that was up to that point missing from your life, or whether your parents indoctrinated you into belief, or whether you believe the hand of God actively searched you and struck you and you never stood a chance against it - it doesn't matter - your circumstances led to your conditioning, and your conditioning led to your conclusions.

Now, you argue against me that my observation of moral subjectivism's existence (denominationalism, which I can objectively observe) means that I believe anything is 'moral'. If you define something as being 'moral' if it is something which is a personal belief of right and wrong, then yes, any belief of right and wrong is a 'moral' belief.

But if you mean 'moral' to be equatable to 'condonable' then no, not every behaviour based on a subjective morality is 'moral' - some behaviours based on particular moral systems are despicable. For instance, the practice of stoning people to death. Though it is based, like all moral beliefs, on a personally held conviction of 'right and wrong', I think it is despicable.

Why do I think it is despicable? Because I would not like to be stoned to death. Empathy. My morality is based on empathy. I base my morality on empathy because for all my searching for some objective truth, like searching for a secret key to the universal right and wrong, I recognized that in empathy lay that very thing. If I consider another person as myself, I become them in mind, thus whatever I may do against that person I would imagine done against me. Would I like to be discriminated against? No.

Would I like to be a self funding religious person who runs an institution forced to employ people who go against my religious ideals? No.

Would I like to be a governmentally contracted Christian running a Christian ministry, who by garnering government funding goes against my own religion's ideals? No. (Matt 35:33-35 - Swear No Oaths By Either Heaven Or Earth)

And just like you can argue against the conclusion I have formed on that verse, I can counter-argue, all day long. Because there is no totally objective method of interpreting the gospel's message. My understanding of that verse, in practical terms, is just as valid as yours, unless of course you believe that I haven't got the subjective spirit of your single correct denomination out of 41,000 denominations, in which case you automatically win.

And that win would be on the basis that you believe that your conclusions are superior to mine, regardless of what I say. Nothing else.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#75
The very fact that there exist Christian people who would dispute your view of right and wrong should encourage you to investigate the matter further. I know that you consider them to be stupid people who haven't got the correct spirit or don't know the true God, but did you ever stop to think that perhaps your view is just as subjective as theirs?

It stands to reason that if in a particular belief group many people believe different things based upon the texts from which beliefs are required to be based, that there is room for the interpretation of the individual. If you do not leave room for that interpretation, then you don't place any value on the right of the individual to 'see-as-they-see', thus you believe that only your interpretation holds any validity.

That would make you the absolute authority on Christian beliefs. The definition of a dictator is one who holds absolute authority. Now I know you like to assert that my position makes me a dictator, but in fact the only person I consider myself to have authority over is myself. My actions are my decisions, and my conclusions are my own. My thoughts are my thoughts.

I don't think I have any right to directly or indirectly enforce those thoughts, and to tell you the truth, I don't think any person should have that right. Among the freedoms I hold dear, the most important is the Right to Others'. That is, the right for me not to have my rights denied on the condition that I do not deny another person their rights.

For this idea upon which free society is based, there must be a common set of rules that take into account every individuals personal beliefs, yet it must suffice to discourage or even legally ban infringements on others rights by any individual.

Now, I can see that this is quite difficult for you to understand, considering you keep asserting that your idea of Christian objective morality is the ultimate dictatorial authority on all matters of law and morality. But it basically means, in context of the thread, that when you apply for a job, nobody can discriminate against you without reasonable cause.

In the context of religious institutions, the very reason that religious institutions can discriminate in employment is because they are separate from state in many ways. One of the essential criteria that allows a religious institution to discriminate on solely religious premises is that they are non-profit organizations commited to furthering a particular epistemological viewpoint and so to promote-by-proxy something against that viewpoint by hiring a homosexual would defeat their very purpose of being.

But if they want government funding (attaching them to the state) and they want to profiteer from that funding indirectly by investment of those funds, then they become either a government funded institution (attached to state) or a business, thus they must abide by the governmental hiring policy or business laws.
 
Last edited:
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#76
Otherwise, we might as-well completely scrap the right to not have rights infringed. If businesses or for-profit organizations could discriminate in the vein you would wish, then I could deny a christian a job simply because they are christian. I could deny anyone service because of my personally held convictions.

And the issue with this is that it encourages canvassing and preferential employment. What's to stop every shop or business boycotting gay people for both service and employment? They wouldn't be able to make an income or buy any goods. It's unfair and unjust.

We'd effectively be leaving them no option but to flee our society.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#77
And I can understand if someone would say 'well just make an exception for Christian organizations'. But we're a multicultural Western society. If one religion can do it, it opens the floodgates. On the the other hand, if only one religion (Christianity) is continued to be allowed to do it, then it's preferential treatment to Christian people.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
13,576
9,093
113
#78
Otherwise, we might as-well completely scrap the right to not have rights infringed. If businesses or for-profit organizations could discriminate in the vein you would wish, then I could deny a christian a job simply because they are christian. I could deny anyone service because of my personally held convictions.

And the issue with this is that it encourages canvassing and preferential employment. What's to stop every shop or business boycotting gay people for both service and employment? They wouldn't be able to make an income or buy any goods. It's unfair and unjust.

We'd effectively be leaving them no option but to flee our society.
Discrimination is a word that has been twisted by those on the left to be a pejorative. The truth is DISCRIMINATION=FREEDOM.

We ALL discriminate in a variety of ways every day. I discriminate with who I want to associate with, worship with, buy from, even who, if anyone,I pick up as a hitchhiker. If I don't want to hire someone for whatever reason, or NO reason, that is my freedom, and that person is free to apply for my company, then quit the next day, or work some other place.

You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with socialist views you can't even wrap your mind around what freedom actually is.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#79
Discrimination is a word that has been twisted by those on the left to be a pejorative. The truth is DISCRIMINATION=FREEDOM.

We ALL discriminate in a variety of ways every day. I discriminate with who I want to associate with, worship with, buy from, even who, if anyone,I pick up as a hitchhiker. If I don't want to hire someone for whatever reason, or NO reason, that is my freedom, and that person is free to apply for my company, then quit the next day, or work some other place.

You have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with socialist views you can't even wrap your mind around what freedom actually is.
So basically what your'e saying is that simple disagreement of character should be legal grounds to refuse any person employment, and every employer should have the right to do so?

You do realize that you are essentially advocating that regardless of how well qualified a person is the decision to employ them should rest on favouritism?

You do realize that at any given time there are social groups who are less favoured than others, and what you're saying is that the fact that people will put those people in a position where they cannot find any means of income is okay?

I've got no issue with discriminating in your personal life. Discriminate away. It's your prerogative, even if it does make you a dullard. But employment is another matter.
 
Jun 18, 2014
755
3
0
#80
You will rue the day that discrimination in employment is openly encouraged, because one day that prejudice will be aimed at you.