06-12-2014 04:53 PM
136 1234 ...
tools
  1. toober's Avatar
    Hell I would say get a Satin worshiper to lead a pray for that reason.
    Satin Worship

    Not sure how well it would go over with the general public, but I would let these guys lead a prayer at my council meeting if they wanted. I love satin.
    TOTtomdora likes this.
    05-11-2014 09:52 PM
  2. anon8126715's Avatar
    Satin Worship

    Not sure how well it would go over with the general public, but I would let these guys lead a prayer at my council meeting if they wanted. I love satin.
    He definitely lost me. Now if he had said "silk worshiper", I could possibly be on board, but satin? c'mon!
    TOTtomdora likes this.
    05-12-2014 11:59 AM
  3. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    It's really never the religion, just the people trying to twist it. I know tons of Christians that are good people. All it takes is a few to give the whole thing a bad name.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    05-21-2014 12:37 AM
  4. A895's Avatar
    All it takes is a few to give the whole thing a bad name.
    That can be said about any group of people ever in the history of the world.
    05-21-2014 05:58 AM
  5. anon8126715's Avatar
    It's really never the religion, just the people trying to twist it. I know tons of Christians that are good people. All it takes is a few to give the whole thing a bad name.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Are these actual Christians that follow Jesus Christ's teachings or are they pseudo-Christians? I still don't believe that Jesus Christ would be pro-capitalism if he were alive today. Hell, he'd probably be crucified by some of the very same people back in the day that you think are devout followers of his today.
    05-21-2014 04:32 PM
  6. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Are these actual Christians that follow Jesus Christ's teachings or are they pseudo-Christians? I still don't believe that Jesus Christ would be pro-capitalism if he were alive today. Hell, he'd probably be crucified by some of the very same people back in the day that you think are devout followers of his today.
    You really despise Christians huh? Not all are what the stereotype portray.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    05-21-2014 06:32 PM
  7. Aquila's Avatar
    You really despise Christians huh?

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I interpreted it as that person despising hypocrisy and going after the reference that is most familiar to most of us. If that interpretation is correct, I largely agree. I don't really mind people "choosing to believe" (whatever that means, or however it is possible) whatever they want - but when your actions and words are the opposite of your stated aims and purposes, it gets kinda awkward, especially when it seems that the contradiction is not observed.

    Someone commented earlier in another thread about how a few bad apples spoil the bunch, and in the case of religion it is especially true, given that the assumption of motive is allegedly divine and that creates an expectation of adherence to the claims, rather than the outright hypocritical application and/or selective application. In that way, an actual follower of Jesus' teachings, when taken both in spirit and literal words to deed sequence would be very very different from the typical Christian that gets portrayed in American culture. How the actual majority of practitioners behave we'll never know - largely because if they ARE true to their roots, they're incredibly humble and personal about their own relationship and not preachy or extravagant, etc and they'd never be going on the attack against those they are forbidden to cast judgement upon. As such, they either do not exist or are invisible and the only visible example available to people not practicing alongside them is one of the hypocritical fools alluded to previously.

    There is nothing more or less insane or wise or true or false about Christianity than there is about Hinduism or any other. Christianity is merely the most common category of religious beliefs professed by Americans and thus the best example, because it would be very rare for any of us to not be familiar with at least who they are, etc. I seriously hope we're not singling out one religion over another and the attack isn't on the religion or the religious beliefs, but upon the hypocritical actions of those professing to possess those beliefs.

    At the same time, there are people who legitimately are trying to do the right things and make mistakes and some people who are just misguided and we all have to remember that we're human and mistakes are going to happen. It'd be kinda hypocritical a bit for us to criticize judgemental people from a religion of forgiveness.... when we're judging them as well and could perhaps set a better example by assuming it's not malicious and trying to help each other grow.
    palandri likes this.
    05-21-2014 06:46 PM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    You really despise Christians huh? Not all are what the stereotype portray.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    I actually like the Christian belief and ideals. I don't like those that are Christian in name and not in deed. I would actually prefer that they not call themselves Christian if they don't at least make an attempt to act Christian.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    05-21-2014 06:57 PM
  9. anon8126715's Avatar
    I interpreted it as that person despising hypocrisy and going after the reference that is most familiar to most of us. If that interpretation is correct, I largely agree. I don't really mind people "choosing to believe" (whatever that means, or however it is possible) whatever they want - but when your actions and words are the opposite of your stated aims and purposes, it gets kinda awkward, especially when it seems that the contradiction is not observed.

    Someone commented earlier in another thread about how a few bad apples spoil the bunch, and in the case of religion it is especially true, given that the assumption of motive is allegedly divine and that creates an expectation of adherence to the claims, rather than the outright hypocritical application and/or selective application. In that way, an actual follower of Jesus' teachings, when taken both in spirit and literal words to deed sequence would be very very different from the typical Christian that gets portrayed in American culture. How the actual majority of practitioners behave we'll never know - largely because if they ARE true to their roots, they're incredibly humble and personal about their own relationship and not preachy or extravagant, etc and they'd never be going on the attack against those they are forbidden to cast judgement upon. As such, they either do not exist or are invisible and the only visible example available to people not practicing alongside them is one of the hypocritical fools alluded to previously.

    There is nothing more or less insane or wise or true or false about Christianity than there is about Hinduism or any other. Christianity is merely the most common category of religious beliefs professed by Americans and thus the best example, because it would be very rare for any of us to not be familiar with at least who they are, etc. I seriously hope we're not singling out one religion over another and the attack isn't on the religion or the religious beliefs, but upon the hypocritical actions of those professing to possess those beliefs.

    At the same time, there are people who legitimately are trying to do the right things and make mistakes and some people who are just misguided and we all have to remember that we're human and mistakes are going to happen. It'd be kinda hypocritical a bit for us to criticize judgemental people from a religion of forgiveness.... when we're judging them as well and could perhaps set a better example by assuming it's not malicious and trying to help each other grow.
    This is a pretty good interpretation of my sentiment for the most part. I tend to have a rather cynical view of religion, which by my own admission, I probably am a little too harsh on religions in general. I remember being told a long time ago by a relative that my loss of faith should not be directed at an individual religion, but in some of the people that identify themselves incorrectly with those religions.
    05-21-2014 07:06 PM
  10. anon8126715's Avatar
    You really despise Christians huh? Not all are what the stereotype portray.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Here's another story that makes me question some "Christians". 'Thou shalt not': Catholic teachers challenge morality clause - CNN.com

    I'm not sure how "wanting to avoid lawsuits for firing teachers because they sin, thus making them sign this document" coincides with following Jesus' teachings.
    05-31-2014 09:24 AM
  11. toober's Avatar
    Here's another story that makes me question some "Christians". 'Thou shalt not': Catholic teachers challenge morality clause - CNN.com

    I'm not sure how "wanting to avoid lawsuits for firing teachers because they sin, thus making them sign this document" coincides with following Jesus' teachings.
    I have no problem with any employer that wants to institute morality clauses as long as the employee knows of the requirements when taking the job.
    05-31-2014 09:40 AM
  12. msndrstood's Avatar
    I'd be looking for another job. In no way should an employer control your private life. Just no.

    They could just as easily demand you do not drink alcohol on your own private time. I spent many years in the Catholic Church, I've seen up close and personal the hypocrisy that runs rampant in religious institutions. They took a vow, I didn't. So, no to the contract that infringes on the 1st amendment right to free speech.

    I'll bet if it infringed on the 2nd amendment, there would be more blowback instead of infringing on the measly old freedom of speech right.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    05-31-2014 09:56 AM
  13. toober's Avatar
    As long as the terms of employment are spelled out from the start, there should be no problem. If I were looking for a job and the employer said they would not employ gun owners, I would look elsewhere. If they said they would only hire non drinkers, or non smokers, I'd keep looking. Employers should have the right to decide who they hire based on whatever their own criteria is.
    05-31-2014 10:43 AM
  14. anon8126715's Avatar
    As long as the terms of employment are spelled out from the start, there should be no problem. If I were looking for a job and the employer said they would not employ gun owners, I would look elsewhere. If they said they would only hire non drinkers, or non smokers, I'd keep looking. Employers should have the right to decide who they hire based on whatever their own criteria is.
    One problem I have with it is they're tax exempt. These types of behavior should result in these entities losing their tax exempt status. Same goes for any religious entities that don't want to cover their employees' healthcare because it violates some "morality" code that coincidentally undermines the ACA. Fine, don't cover your employee because you think it violates some moral belief of yours, but now you will be required to pay taxes so that the state can cover your employees for you.

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    msndrstood likes this.
    05-31-2014 12:01 PM
  15. msndrstood's Avatar
    As long as the terms of employment are spelled out from the start, there should be no problem. If I were looking for a job and the employer said they would not employ gun owners, I would look elsewhere. If they said they would only hire non drinkers, or non smokers, I'd keep looking. Employers should have the right to decide who they hire based on whatever their own criteria is.
    The problem is 2200 teachers have to sign this NEW agreement, which means most of them we already employees of the school prior to this change. Now if they don't want to comply they'll have to start looking for a new job. What about the teachers that have tenure?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    05-31-2014 12:28 PM
  16. toober's Avatar
    The problem is 2200 teachers have to sign this NEW agreement, which means most of them we already employees of the school prior to this change. Now if they don't want to comply they'll have to start looking for a new job. What about the teachers that have tenure?

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    I would have to side with the teachers in that case. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. I do think that the school should be allowed to hire new employees with any agreements they choose and allow current employees to work under agreements already in place until they either retire or leave of their own volition.
    msndrstood likes this.
    05-31-2014 01:15 PM
  17. NoYankees44's Avatar
    Teachers that work for public schools are not "allowed" to drink in public or do anything that looks bad on their school. Legal or not. I have heard of teachers being fired for it. Especially newer teachers without tenure. My wife and I have to be mindful of how we act in public because of this. (not that we make a habit of being unruly)

    These requirements are not exclusive to the private sector. Behavior clauses are in all kinds of jobs that reach into one's personal time.
    05-31-2014 03:52 PM
  18. anon8126715's Avatar
    Teachers that work for public schools are not "allowed" to drink in public or do anything that looks bad on their school. Legal or not. I have heard of teachers being fired for it. Especially newer teachers without tenure. My wife and I have to be mindful of how we act in public because of this. (not that we make a habit of being unruly)

    These requirements are not exclusive to the private sector. Behavior clauses are in all kinds of jobs that reach into one's personal time.
    I think most states actually have laws against public drinking (on public property if we're referring to the same thing as opposed to drinking at a bar, or at a ballgame).

    I can agree with companies that fire employees that break the law, but to break some morality clause, the problem I have with these policies is there are morals being broken all the time. If you're going to cherry pick which ones you can't break, then you have no moral high ground. I'm willing to bet that the people that drafted this decree live in large homes. Not exactly moral to live so high and mighty with so many suffering around you.

    But like I said, they shouldn't cherry pick what they want their subordinates to abide by. They should either insist EVERYONE follow the moral code of their "book", or stop trying to selectively enforce their rules.
    05-31-2014 09:41 PM
  19. vinnie_boombhats's Avatar
    People often forget that freedom is a two way street. If you wish to practice your beliefs without fear of retribution, please remember, the other person probably has the same exact wish.
    05-31-2014 10:00 PM
  20. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I think most states actually have laws against public drinking (on public property if we're referring to the same thing as opposed to drinking at a bar, or at a ballgame).

    I can agree with companies that fire employees that break the law, but to break some morality clause, the problem I have with these policies is there are morals being broken all the time. If you're going to cherry pick which ones you can't break, then you have no moral high ground. I'm willing to bet that the people that drafted this decree live in large homes. Not exactly moral to live so high and mighty with so many suffering around you.

    But like I said, they shouldn't cherry pick what they want their subordinates to abide by. They should either insist EVERYONE follow the moral code of their "book", or stop trying to selectively enforce their rules.
    No drinking in public period. Bars. restaurants. Whatever.

    Being a teacher is just like a politician. If the public forms a negative opinion of you, nothing else matters. You have lost your job. Thus why public drinking is technically not allowed for them.
    05-31-2014 10:03 PM
  21. toober's Avatar
    I'm willing to bet that the people that drafted this decree live in large homes. Not exactly moral to live so high and mighty with so many suffering around you.
    Are you saying that there is something morally wrong with a person that lives in a large home? I fail to see how a person's wealth and success automatically equate to immorality. This large home could be the result of a lifetime of frugal living and sacrifice in order to obtain a certain level of living in retirement. Without knowing how a person has obtained their wealth and/or status, it is rather difficult, at least for me, to sit in judgement of them. It is the same with the people that are suffering. I do not know if the person that is financially destitute is there due to their own choices or a series of unfortunate events. Would you really rate the lifelong alcoholic in the same category as the person that lost everything when a child was born with a serious birth defect? Again, it is hard to make blanket statements without knowing the whole story.
    But like I said, they shouldn't cherry pick what they want their subordinates to abide by. They should either insist EVERYONE follow the moral code of their "book", or stop trying to selectively enforce their rules.
    I thought the story was about them wanting everyone that is employed by them to follow the moral code of their book. Did I miss the part where they were selectively enforcing the policy?
    05-31-2014 10:28 PM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    No drinking in public period. Bars. restaurants. Whatever.

    Being a teacher is just like a politician. If the public forms a negative opinion of you, nothing else matters. You have lost your job. Thus why public drinking is technically not allowed for them.
    I don't think I could give up my rights outside the clock. Now if they want to pay me round the clock, I'd have no problem, but to insist you follow their rules that aren't local or state laws on your own time is kind of ludicrous. And lets not forget, even the President and Joe Biden shared a beer (that dopey "beer summit").
    msndrstood likes this.
    05-31-2014 10:29 PM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    Are you saying that there is something morally wrong with a person that lives in a large home?
    I'm not saying that, Christianity teaches it.
    05-31-2014 10:47 PM
  24. toober's Avatar
    I'm not saying that, Christianity teaches it.
    That is something I would love for you to show me. I've always been taught that while we should be charitable, we must also be good stewards of our money and use it to provide for ourselves and our families. There is nothing in the Bible that says I must live in poverty and give all my money to people that cannot or will not provide for themselves.
    05-31-2014 11:00 PM
  25. anon8126715's Avatar
    That is something I would love for you to show me. I've always been taught that while we should be charitable, we must also be good stewards of our money and use it to provide for ourselves and our families. There is nothing in the Bible that says I must live in poverty and give all my money to people that cannot or will not provide for themselves.
    Timothy 6:7-10

    For we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.
    Like I said, Christians tend to cherry pick what they want to follow......


    I couldn't be a Christian because I know I couldn't follow all the teachings, and not sure I'd try. What to me makes some christians worse than others is when they try to enforce these believes onto others. If you can't follow your own religious beliefs then you should not try to impose them onto other people.
    05-31-2014 11:08 PM
136 1234 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Phone Stuck At Bootloop
    By jahanzeb javed in forum Huawei MediaPad X1
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-07-2014, 12:21 PM
  2. Tab 3 separating at bottom
    By scubahope05 in forum Samsung Galaxy Tab 3
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 11:00 AM
  3. AT&T vs. Unlocked
    By detroitmikeb in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-14-2014, 06:45 AM
  4. AT&T Galaxy S4: Date missing in notification panel
    By rayge in forum AT&T Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 01:02 AM
  5. AT&T S5 apps safe to turn off/disable/uninstall
    By D-CELL in forum Samsung Galaxy S5
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2014, 11:16 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD