Listen to yourself. Preach. Lie. Mock. Lie. — whollyrolling

So many accusations, without refuting anything or showing the lie.

You win this debate buddy. Yours is a great philosophy, for the delusional.

Regards
DL

then of course the task for the public system is more difficult. — andrewk

Why? They can expel as well and if the person from the private or catholic system does not tow their line, the public system will expel him or her as well.

Regards
DL

America isn't perfect, and I haven't claimed it to be, but it's the best system currently available. — whollyrolling

I see a full blown delusion.

The U.S. system is proving to be garbage as compared to many of the free countries.

Now if the U.S. walked it's talk you might have a point but it does not and is quite low on the best country to live in stats. Inconvenient stats in your case that you do not seem to know about.

Regards
DL

As far as propagation, no one's conducting an "inquisition" in America. — whollyrolling

Inquisitions and jihads are tools to either kill the opposition or use force of discrimination and denigration to convert.

Only a blind fool would not see the discrimination and denigration of women and gays perpetrated by the mainstream religions as not being inquisition and jihad tactics.

Regards
DL

I'm well aware of the "happiest places to live" stats--the top positions belong to a few ethnically and religiously homogeneous nations.

We haven't begun a debate yet because in order to do so people have to define terms and conditions to avoid running around in semantic circles and getting caught up dispelling lies. You've lied about a few things and I called you on them, but you refuse to admit them and instead accuse me of "defending religion" while I'm doing no such thing.

You have presented no argument. There isn't yet anything to refute. All you've done is mock those who don't agree with your preaching and you've done it without any foundation.

I haven't presented a philosophy of any kind yet, I've merely tried to correct your errors. I'm still trying to get through the layers of dishonesty, prejudice, preaching and discrimination you're constructing around your viewpoint.

Please feel free to quote where I agreed with any religious doctrine. You've continually repeated this stuff about inquisition and jihad as though I've defended religion in some way and you have to inform me of its evil machinations.

You've been so defensive and so concerned about preaching the wonders of your religion that you're not even listening to what people are saying to you.

I'm well aware of the "happiest places to live" stats--the top positions belong to a few ethnically and religiously homogeneous nations. — whollyrolling

Yes, and you might have noticed that the less religious a nation is, the more peaceful, happy and less violent it is.

We haven't begun a debate yet because in order to do so people have to define terms and conditions to avoid running around in semantic circles and getting caught up dispelling lies. — whollyrolling

You want to have a philosophical debate and put the cart before the horse.
What you suggest, has been reversed by philosophers who know that such a task happens after the debate and not before. If we cannot start by using plain language with the usual dictionary definitions, the debate will stall in the definition of words and the real discussion will never happen.

Who in hell told you the stupidity that you are trying to implement here?

Not how we can now discuss without analysing and defining the word stupidity, which we likely not define any better than the dictionaries.

The rest of your post is just childish whining. Get better or get lost.

Regards
DL

You're nothing but a troll behind an imaginary pulpit.

whollyrolling — whollyrolling

Bite me.

Regards
DL

Why? They can expel as well and if the person from the private or catholic system does not tow their line, the public system will expel him or her as well. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

What is your evidence for that claim? Have you researched it?

I have never heard of a public school system that can expel students. They can be suspended but that is only temporary.

If you have any hard evidence that the Canadian public school system can permanently expel students, I would be interested to see it.

@ Whollyrolling and Gnostic

The reason you can't come to agreement is because each of you is arguing about a "different" religion.

Your argument can be summarized as thus:

Person A: I have this concept of religion and it goes like this: etc. etc.
Person B: I have this other concept of religion, and based on this concept I say you're wrong.
Person A: No, my concept of religion is more true than yours.
Person B: You believe that only because you suck.

Etc. etc.

In other words, the two of you are just talking past each other. Each of you is arguing about a different "religion" [i.e. each of your mental representations of religions are different, so in effect you're not even arguing about the 'same' religion], which is why the two of you will NEVER come to agreement.

Oh ho ho ho ho.

It's ignored by the free world because of realpolitik. That's why the U.S. and OECD members play along with KSA, etc.

As for ending "vile" religions, that's obvious as some rights supersede others. This also counters the belief that a ban should be imposed on ALL public religious representations.

Person A is implying that all religion apart from person A's chosen religion--is a bull in the China shop of society.

Person B is quoting Person A's belligerent and intolerant, at times incoherent, commentary and suggesting where Person A is incorrect about both writings and practices within the religion(s) to which Person A is referring.

Person B is directly addressing the contents and the nature of the OP.

Person A is responding with immaturity and contempt to anything that points out the obvious errors within Person A's commentary--from Persons B, C, D, etc.

Person B is not "mentally representing" any religion or making any attempt to address religion but rather referring to writings within the same religion to which Person A is referring that contradict what Person A is saying.

There's no argument about religion, there is an argument about dishonesty and misrepresentation.

My argument is that Person A is dishonest, uninformed and willfully biased and creating or responding to numerous threads with the sole intention of propagating his/her own religion while attempting to manufacture faults in others where no manufacturing is required.

If you have any hard evidence that the Canadian public school system can permanently expel students, I would be interested to see it. — andrewk

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/suspexp.html

Regards
DL

This also counters the belief that a ban should be imposed on ALL public religious representations. — ralfy

Why do you value the one-upmanship that public displays of religiosity show?

Why do you like public insults to the secular who just want to be left in peace and without the insults against them that the religious do or make?

Regards
DL

Read the section entitled "What programs and supports are offered when students are expelled?"

The public education system continues its attempts to provide an education. Does that happen in the Catholic system, or any private system.

Secondly, look at the reasons for expulsion, and compare them with the reasons Catholic schools can use for expulsion.

andrewk — andrewk

I have no need to as I have shown that all schools can expel.

Regards
DL

Read again the post in response to which you posted those links - more carefully this time. It was not about schools expelling. It was about the system expelling them - ie ceasing to have any responsibility for their education. There is a huge difference.

For your convenience, here is the item you need to counter:

I have never heard of a public school system that can expel students. — andrewk

Because not all "public displays of religiosity" involve "one-upmanship" or are "public insults to the secular."

Because not all "public displays of religiosity" involve "one-upmanship" or are "public insults to the secular." — ralfy

??

If not one-upmanship, then why?

Regards
DL

They are part of self-expression.

I

I believe to ban religious icons would be a backward step. A step to more intolerance. What next? Ban all national flagS? Ban all national songs? Religious hatred is based on ignorance. We see religious people as "different" to us. But, we need to see the bonds of common humanity. We all weep when we lose a loved one. We worry if we lose our job. Our shared humanity should help us be tolerant . There is a place for both religious belief and secularism in society. We should young people to understand different cultures. An outline of world religions as a school subject, would be a good starting point. Ignorance leads to hatred. Knowledge leads to tolerance.

They are part of self-expression. — ralfy

True.
A self-expression, that insults people needlessly with their hypocritical one-upmanship.

If I self-express and call you an a hole just for thinking as you do, would you like it and would that ease tension in our community?

Do you like inquisitions and jihads and thought control?

Regards
DL

A step to more intolerance. — Bodhisattva

Correct. Against the intolerant hypocrites and their intolerant one-upmanship and violence in the community.

Religious hatred is based on ignorance. — Bodhisattva

I agree that the religious are ignorant of decent morals and that is why their supernatural imaginary gods are such vile slave wanting pricks.

We see religious people as "different" to us. — Bodhisattva

Indeed. Inferior as their ideal ideology includes the adoration of a genocidal son murdering god who they can somehow see as good.

That is likely why many hate them and there beliefs, which include the notion that women and gays are inferior to heterosexual men. So much for equality for women and gays.

But, we need to see the bonds of common humanity. — Bodhisattva

I will let you bond with them and their inquisitions and jihads.

We all weep when we lose a loved one. — Bodhisattva

True, but not for joy when it is a terrorist blowing other up along with himself. His loved ones praise such immoral insanity.

Our shared humanity should help us be tolerant . — Bodhisattva

Indeed, but when your holy book tells you to curse, denigrate and kill all non-believers, that is hardly showing tolerance.

There is a place for both religious belief and secularism in society. — Bodhisattva

The belief, sure, but a country must decide if it is secular or religious and push that as much as it can, especially with the more vile and immoral religions.

We should young people to understand different cultures. — Bodhisattva

Absolutely, and not just hate others because they eat pigs or shell fish or believe in equality for all.

Knowledge leads to tolerance. — Bodhisattva

Not if what you think should be tolerated is intolerance of others, even in your own religion, should they be women or gays.

Regards
DL

You're committing hasty generalizations.

You're committing hasty generalizations. — ralfy

I am recognizing history, and you did not refute anything.

Regards
DL

History? Where? There is nothing in your posts to me that shows that.

History? Where? There is nothing in your posts to me that shows that. — ralfy

If you do not recognize that our mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous, and have been that for eons, then -----

Regards
DL

You're not even following your topic thread. The question refers to a ban on all public religious representations, but you give no evidence showing that all representations encourage hatred and violence.

but you give no evidence showing that all representations encourage hatred and violence. — ralfy

I would have to have access to all human consciousness' to do so.

If you have not recognized, with all the religious wars, even between sects of the same religion, that religions and their beliefs and icons create a lot of strife, you have a problem.

Regards
DL