- Banned
- #726
Says the guy pointing and yelling at Muslims.
You look like quite the bigot yourself Marcel.
Rubbish
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
AFLW 2024 - Round 3 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Says the guy pointing and yelling at Muslims.
You look like quite the bigot yourself Marcel.
Rubbish
It still annoys me that comfortably into the twentieth century citing religion gives you an excuse for bigotry. It feels like a massive cop out.
Maybe. Or maybe you want to hide behind 'false equivalence' to discriminate against religion when it suits you?
Quite the bigoted world view some might say.
Rance was almost a priest while being the goat and his religious group is very dodgy. Would you have banned him in his prime?
Ironic much
one example doesnt discount all behaviour. I never said god's behaviour was limited to these 3Love- torturing himself to die for the sins of man he created because a talking snake convinced a rib woman to eat an apple in a garden that never existed.
Mercy-killed everyone (except one family, whom presumably repopulated the planet via incest)on the planet because we disappointed him because of the way he made us.
Compassion-see above
Sounds legit, it almost like you just make s**t up to suit your gods needs
Im not at all. Im saying these behaviours occur throughout society, especially where there is opportunity. Teachers, swimming coaches, scout leaders, priests, family situations. They have all been implicated in pedophilia. This is not a religion issue. In fact it's completely counter to religious moral standardsWhy are you trying to minimise and make excuses for pedophiles?
which cult would that be?It's pretty clear the guy is deep into the cult.
that's what happens when attitudes appear selectiveYes, there's a massive difference. Stop with the hypothetical nonsense.
All you are doing is pointing at muslims and yelling 'look over there'. It's pathetic.
it's a religious moral standard for those practicing the religion. It is also an issue between the individual and a deity they propose to follow. If it extends beyond this it isnt appropriateIt still annoys me that comfortably into the twentieth century citing religion gives you an excuse for bigotry. It feels like a massive cop out.
Well that settles it. Also, North Korea is democratic.which cult would that be?
In fact if you look at the church on a hill website they are based on anglican demonination. They dont appear to be a pentecostal church
That's a poor responseWell that settles it. Also, North Korea is democratic.
got evidence? I think thats garbage
How so?
It is illegal to not hire women, yet many churches only hire men as pastors, and cite verses in the Bible as their justification.
In no other role would that be acceptable, religion is used as an excuse for bigotry.
Thorburn was not discriminated against for his religion, he was discriminated against because of his actions. The fact that his actions were religiously motivated does not excuse them.
Well to be fair "diversity" is used as an excuse to concentrate hiring energies in the corporate world on basically anything that's not a white straight male.
I'm of the view religious organisations should be able to discriminate in their own employment. Otherwise you end up with the situation whereby atheists or Muslims could apply to teach at Christian schools that have Christian values. That's why I have no problem with churches having a policy against employing female pastors. There are bible passages to justify that position, rightly or wrongly, and churches that allow female pastors if someone feels inclined to go down that path.That’s an entirely different argument to be having and I’m sure there’s threads for it.
But surely you can see the very clear difference between a hiring policy (whether it’s right or wrong), that aims to give men and women equal opportunity in the workplace, versus a hiring policy that completely eliminates the policy of one gender ever fulfilling the role?
That’s an entirely different argument to be having and I’m sure there’s threads for it.
But surely you can see the very clear difference between a hiring policy (whether it’s right or wrong), that aims to give men and women equal opportunity in the workplace, versus a hiring policy that completely eliminates the policy of one gender ever fulfilling the role?
Do you know what ironic means?Ironic much
Do you know what ironic means?
Thornburn is chairman of the board of a church which publicly preaches that homosexuality is a sin. Essendon is a football club which seeks to be inclusive of people regardless of sexuality, and seeks to instil this value in the football community. Because of those opposing values and aims, he could not perform is role as chairman of his church, and CEO of Essendon simultaneously.
If you recall, during the Israel Folau saga, Matt Kennedy, a Christian, got into trouble for liking the post. He was asked to remove his like, he was not sacked, not asked to leave his church or change his beliefs.
If Rance was preaching on weekends that gays go to hell while he was playing then there probably would have been an issue with the code of conduct or something like that, but he wasn’t, hence he wasn’t sacked. Because despite what the Sky News fear mongerers tell you you are actually free to have your own personal religious beliefs.
There’s no Anti-Christian agenda. There would be 100s of Christian people working in the AFL, and some of them, if not a lot probably hold the same views on homesexuality.
How so?
It is illegal to not hire women, yet many churches only hire men as pastors, and cite verses in the Bible as their justification.
In no other role would that be acceptable, religion is used as an excuse for bigotry.
Thorburn was not discriminated against for his religion, he was discriminated against because of his actions. The fact that his actions were religiously motivated does not excuse them.
What is wrong with "discriminating" against an ideology? No set of ideas are sacrosanct just because they have believe themselves to be.I've got some idea. OP perhaps doesn't fit the technical definition but it's curious how far we allow discrimination against religion going forward.
What is wrong with "discriminating" against an ideology? No set of ideas are sacrosanct just because they have believe themselves to be.
which is a massive issue, and unforgivable.I think it’s that’s the small percentage that have perpetrated the evil act were allowed / enabled to do so with such frequency and for so long.
Yeah, his major limitation is in not existing at all and only being the creation of archaic ignorant men!one example doesnt discount all behaviour. I never said god's behaviour was limited to these 3