I guess you don't know about how the Bible has been used to justify the sacking of Byzantine, the invasion of the Middle East, and American Slavery.Sorry, but, Since when was your ethnicity against someone's Religious Beliefs?
Snipes_2
This topic is locked from further discussion.
You're right. It is your prerogative to quit.[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Obama doesn't have the right to impose Homosexuality on anyone. IF you don't want a Homosexual working for you then that's your own prerogative.
Snipes_2
What are you talking about?
If you're afraid of gays, you can quit your job.race yes but I dont think sexual orientation falls into that category. What I find more interesting though is that people can even say that the reason for not being hired is over such a thing because from my experience people dont generally give you reasons for not hiring you.I dont even know what this is truly about but I saw the post saying that they cant deny someone a job because of being homosexual, I thought denying someone a job because of their sexual orientation or race was already illegal?
MuddVader
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]I guess you don't know about how the Bible has been used to justify the sacking of Byzantine, the invasion of the Middle East, and American Slavery.Sorry, but, Since when was your ethnicity against someone's Religious Beliefs?
wstfld
Who used it to justify such things? I'd like an Example please. Plus, I seriously doubt Catholics and/or Christians used it for such a purpose.
This is so idiotic. It's like they are trying to take humanity out of humans, even though I don't agree completely with Christianity I won't hinder others for believing and/or showing it. It just seems this government and all governments in this day and age are trying to squelch Christianity and remove it from everything, which I find utterly contemptable.I definitely don't give a **** what this government thinks about anything so I shall go about my life like this doesn't even exist.
This is coming from a non-Christian too.
If you're afraid of gays, you can quit your job.[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
What are you talking about?
Snipes_2
How is that relevant? We're talking about employers.
My bad. I thought you were speaking of employees who don't want to work with homosexuals.[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
This is precisely why churches should have ZERO INPUT in American government, workplaces and ALL publicly funded organizations and programs.
God should be limited to individual households and churches. Once you step outside of those two places, your relgious views become null and void to everyone around you and if you express yourself religiously in a manner that's intimidating or discriminatory to anyone else, you should be arrested.
PERIOD.
Theokhoth
Arrested for expressing your beliefs in public.
That's not irrational or anything.
Hey, the world would be a better place if people kept their discriminatory religious beliefs to themselves.
I guess you don't know about how the Bible has been used to justify the sacking of Byzantine, the invasion of the Middle East, and American Slavery.[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Sorry, but, Since when was your ethnicity against someone's Religious Beliefs?
Snipes_2
Who used it to justify such things? I'd like an Example please. Plus, I seriously doubt Catholics and/or Christians used it for such a purpose.
The Crusades were obviously Catholic driven. Google the curse of ham and slavery. There should be plenty of hits.[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
This is precisely why churches should have ZERO INPUT in American government, workplaces and ALL publicly funded organizations and programs.
God should be limited to individual households and churches. Once you step outside of those two places, your relgious views become null and void to everyone around you and if you express yourself religiously in a manner that's intimidating or discriminatory to anyone else, you should be arrested.
PERIOD.
Netherscourge
Arrested for expressing your beliefs in public.
That's not irrational or anything.
Hey, the world would be a better place if people kept their discriminatory religious beliefs to themselves.
I disagree. I think a world where people can't express their beliefs is incrementally worse than a world in which they can.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] I guess you don't know about how the Bible has been used to justify the sacking of Byzantine, the invasion of the Middle East, and American Slavery.wstfld
Who used it to justify such things? I'd like an Example please. Plus, I seriously doubt Catholics and/or Christians used it for such a purpose.
The Crusades were obviously Catholic driven. Google the curse of ham and slavery. There should be plenty of hits.Even then, Christians weren't the ones sacking Byzantium, it was their allies, they strayed off course and found it profitable to attack Byzantium while it was weak.
"The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members ofAbrahamic religionsto justifyracismand theenslavementof people ofBlack Africanancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham. They were often calledHamitesand were believed to have descended throughCanaanor his older brothers."
Nowhere does it say Christians or Catholics did this. There are multiple religions classified as "Abrahamic".
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Arrested for expressing your beliefs in public.
That's not irrational or anything.
Theokhoth
Hey, the world would be a better place if people kept their discriminatory religious beliefs to themselves.
I disagree. I think a world where people can't express their beliefs is incrementally worse than a world in which they can.
Agreed.
The Crusades were obviously Catholic driven. Google the curse of ham and slavery. There should be plenty of hits.[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Who used it to justify such things? I'd like an Example please. Plus, I seriously doubt Catholics and/or Christians used it for such a purpose.
Snipes_2
Even then, Christians weren't the ones sacking Byzantium, it was their allies, they strayed off course and found it profitable to attack Byzantium while it was weak.
What allies?[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Arrested for expressing your beliefs in public.
That's not irrational or anything.
Hey, the world would be a better place if people kept their discriminatory religious beliefs to themselves.
I disagree. I think a world where people can't express their beliefs is incrementally worse than a world in which they can.
same but you can fully expect me to express my dislike of people's discriminate beliefs right back at them.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] The Crusades were obviously Catholic driven. Google the curse of ham and slavery. There should be plenty of hits. wstfld
Even then, Christians weren't the ones sacking Byzantium, it was their allies, they strayed off course and found it profitable to attack Byzantium while it was weak.
What allies?"The French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books ofHagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople.The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention."
If you were a Christian why would you Violate those that you praise? And why would you destroy a Church?
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
Arrested for expressing your beliefs in public.
That's not irrational or anything.
Theokhoth
Hey, the world would be a better place if people kept their discriminatory religious beliefs to themselves.
I disagree. I think a world where people can't express their beliefs is incrementally worse than a world in which they can.
And where is the line drawn? Expression tends to get legistlated into law and then affects people who don't even believe the same religious beliefs you do.
And then gay people are banned from marriage and serving in the military and other acts of discrimination.
No, I think people should keep their religious views to themselves and OUT of society in general.
What allies?[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Even then, Christians weren't the ones sacking Byzantium, it was their allies, they strayed off course and found it profitable to attack Byzantium while it was weak.
Snipes_2
"The French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books ofHagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople.The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention."
If you were a Christian why would you Violate those that you praise? And why would you destroy a Church?
Bloodlust. ;)"The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members ofAbrahamic religionsto justifyracismand theenslavementof people ofBlack Africanancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham. They were often calledHamitesand were believed to have descended throughCanaanor his older brothers."
Nowhere does it say Christians or Catholics did this. There are multiple religions classified as "Abrahamic".
Snipes_2
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_slavery_and_southern_religion
Sorry, don't know how to link.
What allies?[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Even then, Christians weren't the ones sacking Byzantium, it was their allies, they strayed off course and found it profitable to attack Byzantium while it was weak.
Snipes_2
"The French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books ofHagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople.The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention."
If you were a Christian why would you Violate those that you praise? And why would you destroy a Church?
Because the Pope told you to and he's infallible.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="wstfld"] What allies?wstfld
"The French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books ofHagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople.The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention."
If you were a Christian why would you Violate those that you praise? And why would you destroy a Church?
Because the Pope told you to and he's infallible.No. The Pope called for the Crusade, but he never intended them to go off course.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
"The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members ofAbrahamic religionsto justifyracismand theenslavementof people ofBlack Africanancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham. They were often calledHamitesand were believed to have descended throughCanaanor his older brothers."
Nowhere does it say Christians or Catholics did this. There are multiple religions classified as "Abrahamic".
wstfld
http://americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/american_slavery_and_southern_religion
Sorry, don't know how to link.
"Antebellum religious views within slave holding communities defended the institution as a divinely decreed fulfillment of God's ordering of human societies."
Antebellum Definition:TheAntebellum Period(from theLatinante, "before," andbellum, "war") was the time period inAmericafrom after the birth of theUnited Statesto the start of theAmerican Civil War.[2]The Antebellum Age was a time of great transition because of theindustrial revolutionin America. It also was a time of growth inslaveryin theAmerican South. It was a phase in American history when America spread towards the west coast which among historians is generally referred to as "Westward Expansion".
It has no mention of Christianity, just Mormons as far as I can see. While Mormons are technically a sect of Christianity, they don't have the same beliefs.
Because the Pope told you to and he's infallible.[QUOTE="wstfld"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
"The French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books ofHagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church's holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople.The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention."
If you were a Christian why would you Violate those that you praise? And why would you destroy a Church?
Snipes_2
No. The Pope called for the Crusade, but he never intended them to go off course.
Never heard of the Great Schism?[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]
Hey, the world would be a better place if people kept their discriminatory religious beliefs to themselves.
Netherscourge
I disagree. I think a world where people can't express their beliefs is incrementally worse than a world in which they can.
And where is the line drawn? Expression tends to get legistlated into law and then affects people who don't even believe the same religious beliefs you do.
And then gay people are banned from marriage and serving in the military and other acts of discrimination.
No, I think people should keep their religious views to themselves and OUT of society in general.
That's why we have things like checks and balances. It's not simply a matter of the majority getting what it wants.
No, religious expression belongs in the public sphere just like anything else. To take that away is just as bad as discrimination against homosexuals--if not worse, as to do so sets a precedent that would affect every facet of free expression.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] Because the Pope told you to and he's infallible.
wstfld
No. The Pope called for the Crusade, but he never intended them to go off course.
Never heard of the Great Schism?There were three schisms between 1054 and 1667. Which one are you referring to?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] Because the Pope told you to and he's infallible.
wstfld
No. The Pope called for the Crusade, but he never intended them to go off course.
Never heard of the Great Schism?There was more than one Schism, which are you referring to, the East or the West? I'll assume you mean the West.
"TheWestern Schism(1378 to 1417) within theRoman Catholic Church, related to thepopesinAvignonversus those in Rome."
How's this related to the Argument? It was Pope against Pope. The Popes original intent was to reclaim "The Holy Land", not to sack Byzantium.
Never heard of the Great Schism?[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
No. The Pope called for the Crusade, but he never intended them to go off course.
Snipes_2
There was more than one Schism, which are you referring to, the East or the West? I'll assume you mean the West.
"TheWestern Schism(1378 to 1417) within theRoman Catholic Church, related to thepopesinAvignonversus those in Rome."
How's this related to the Argument? It was Pope against Pope. The Popes original intent was to reclaim "The Holy Land", not to sack Byzantium.
The East-West Schism. Between Rome and Byzantium. Regardless, Byzantium was sacked and the excuse of religion was used.Christians have a tough time acting like Christ it seems.wstfld
Does that make them Christian? or Catholic?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] Never heard of the Great Schism?wstfld
There was more than one Schism, which are you referring to, the East or the West? I'll assume you mean the West.
"TheWestern Schism(1378 to 1417) within theRoman Catholic Church, related to thepopesinAvignonversus those in Rome."
How's this related to the Argument? It was Pope against Pope. The Popes original intent was to reclaim "The Holy Land", not to sack Byzantium.
The East-West Schism. Between Rome and Byzantium. Regardless, Byzantium was sacked and the excuse of religion was used.No. They found it profitable to sack Byzantium at the time.
[QUOTE="Wolf_BladeGX"][QUOTE="wstfld"]Christians have a tough time acting like Christ it seems.T_P_O
Does that make them Christian? or Catholic?
Catholics are christian.Not necessarily.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/are-roman-catholics-christian
The fact of the matter is, your religious beliefs are completely irrelevant outside of your home, church, or a religious organization. Small businesses are exempt from the ENDA, however, so any opposition seems a little misguided to say the least.Sorry, but, Since when was your ethnicity against someone's Religious Beliefs?
Snipes_2
It has no mention of Christianity, just Mormons as far as I can see. While Mormons are technically a sect of Christianity, they don't have the same beliefs.Snipes_2
I don't know why its not working for you. Here is the article, "American Slavery and Southern Religion: Using the Bible to Justify the Enslavement of Africans in the South", by Michael Streich:
When the Declaration of Independence was promulgated in 1776, a London newspaper described a South Carolina clergyman reading the document aloud while being fanned by a slave. In the Antebellum South, both Protestant and Catholic clergy owned slaves and had developed elaborate biblical defenses to justify the institution. Speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives in February 1836, James Henry Hammond of South Carolina declared, "The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and feature of his African Descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny."
Genesis 9 and the Justification for Slavery
The "status" of a slave converted to Christianity had been settled in the early years of Colonial America. Christian baptism did not negate the servile role of peoples whose status was based on racial considerations. By the 19th century, as Northern groups like the Quakers began to loudly question the morality of slavery, religion in the South attempted to appeal to primarily Old Testament passages regarding the institution.
The first and perhaps most important passage is in Genesis 9.20-27. It is the story of Noah's nakedness after having drunk wine. Ham, his youngest son, did not cover his father's nakedness, as did the older brothers Shem and Japheth. Since these were the first men of an entirely new human race following the biblical flood, Noah's "curse" of Ham appeared significant.
"Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants he shall be to his brothers." Stephen R. Haynes of Rhodes College, in his book Noah's Curse, states that this passage has been interpreted throughout the centuries to refer to those of African descent as well as, perhaps, the beginning of slavery. He even cites early Christian church fathers that held this view. Haynes does not agree with this view, he merely demonstrates how it affected societies that interpreted the Genesis passage to justify African slavery.
Religious Teaching in the South
John W. Blassingame, formerly of Yale University, writes that, "No white minister could give a full exposition of the gospel to the slaves without incurring the wrath of planters." Slaves were encouraged to be devout Christians, but the Christian message they received from planters and ministers was to be docile and submissive. It was God's will that they spent their lives as slaves and sermons capitalized on such themes as "obeying the master."
Slavery was more than an economic necessity. It was greater than the earlier arguments painting it as a necessary evil. It had become, by the 1850s, a biblically based institution immune to abolitionist arguments appealing to Christian morality. This same message was repeated at every Southern Sabbath school and enunciated in every sermon. This was the divine order decreed by God from Genesis onward.
Response of the Slaves
Scholars point out that despite these attempts, slaves developed their own interpretations that rejected a master-slave relationship built on scriptural principles. Although kept from all forms of education including reading, slaves often memorized Bible passages from sermons while some slaves even managed to learn to read surreptitiously and possessed Bibles.
Exceptional slaves like Josiah Henson became ordained and preached a more encompassing and welcoming gospel. Henson eventually fled with his family to Canada and began a ministry for other fugitive slaves. Further, through song and music – the "spiritual," slaves conveyed their own Bible interpretations of deliverance.
Little wonder that after emancipation, freedmen began their own churches, refusing to bond with the white congregations that had for so long used religion as a tool of oppression. The use and misuse of the Bible has been linked to centuries of persecution. The plight of Africans in the South is one example of this.
Sources:
Catholics are christian.[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Wolf_BladeGX"]
Does that make them Christian? or Catholic?
Snipes_2
Not necessarily.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/are-roman-catholics-christian
That doesn't change the fact that the Roman Catholic church consider themselves to be Christian. This doesn't change due to other sects wanting to evangelise the members.The East-West Schism. Between Rome and Byzantium. Regardless, Byzantium was sacked and the excuse of religion was used.[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
There was more than one Schism, which are you referring to, the East or the West? I'll assume you mean the West.
"TheWestern Schism(1378 to 1417) within theRoman Catholic Church, related to thepopesinAvignonversus those in Rome."
How's this related to the Argument? It was Pope against Pope. The Popes original intent was to reclaim "The Holy Land", not to sack Byzantium.
Snipes_2
No. They found it profitable to sack Byzantium at the time.
Yes, I'm sure they did find it very profitable. However, they did it under the guise of Christianity to justify theft and murder.[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="T_P_O"] Catholics are christian.T_P_O
Not necessarily.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/are-roman-catholics-christian
That doesn't change the fact that the Roman Catholic church consider themselves to be Christian.I'm a Roman Catholic. I was specifically taught that we were different from Christians in some of our Beliefs.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="wstfld"] The East-West Schism. Between Rome and Byzantium. Regardless, Byzantium was sacked and the excuse of religion was used.wstfld
No. They found it profitable to sack Byzantium at the time.
Yes, I'm sure they did find it very profitable. However, they did it under the guise of Christianity to justify theft and murder.No they didn't do it under the guise of Christianity. How could they? They Murdered, and Pillaged the entire City. THis includes other Christians and Clergy members.
"While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in theabolition of slavery, theBiblesanctioned the use of regulated slavery in theOld Testamentand whether or not theNew Testamentcondemned or sanctioned slavery has been strongly disputed. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views."
The Bible doesn't sanction the Slavery of Black People. IT refers to the Babylonian Captivity, even then, it states that it's wrong to own another human. IT was used by both sides, the abolitionists and the pro-slavery advocates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery
That doesn't change the fact that the Roman Catholic church consider themselves to be Christian.[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Not necessarily.
http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/are-roman-catholics-christian
Snipes_2
I'm a Roman Catholic. I was specifically taught that we were different from Christians in some of our Beliefs.
No, no educated person would tell you you're not a Christian if you're a Catholic, because it's completely false. You're different from Protestants, but Catholics and Protestants are both Christian, period, end of story. This is exactly why religion is failing as of late; we've got kids like you who don't even know what the hell they are, spreading false information and general ignorance as to the nuances of religious segments of society.
Yes, I'm sure they did find it very profitable. However, they did it under the guise of Christianity to justify theft and murder.[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
No. They found it profitable to sack Byzantium at the time.
Snipes_2
No they didn't do it under the guise of Christianity. How could they? They Murdered, and Pillaged the entire City. This includes other Christians and Clergy members.
You're looking at it through 21st century goggles. Christianity was used to justify some fairly awful things; American slavery, the sacking of a Christian city, the destruction of New World societies, and the Inquisition. When people look back at all of this homosexual discrimination in 100 years, they will wonder how the FRC called itself a Christian organization, just like you are questioning how the crusaders could sack Byzantium.So you agree that it was used to justify slavery?"While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in theabolition of slavery, theBiblesanctioned the use of regulated slavery in theOld Testamentand whether or not theNew Testamentcondemned or sanctioned slavery has been strongly disputed. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views."
The Bible doesn't sanction the Slavery of Black People. IT refers to the Babylonian Captivity, even then, it states that it's wrong to own another human. IT was used by both sides, the abolitionists and the pro-slavery advocates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery
Snipes_2
Dont butcher the article. Your post is incomplete.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="hoola"]
So, according to the article, its not going to force a company to hire someone, it is just going to make it illegal for them not to hire them.
hoola
"So, according to the article, its not going to force a company to hire someone, it is just going to make it illegal for them not to hire them based solely on the criterion of their homosexuality"
You obviously missed the green part.
Nice try in misrepresenting it. >__>
That doesn't matter to me. The point is that they can get in trouble for not hiring them, whether it was a lagitimate concern or their own biases against homosexuals. The company should be able to hire whoever it wants for whatever reason.
It shouldnt matter to anyone that it doesnt matter to you.The point is that you cant hire/fire someone for reasons other than their qualifications. Period.
I would love to see how my Iranian friend would react to this. After all, "gays don't belong on the planet; all gays must die" according to him and the Qu'ran.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]So you agree that it was used to justify slavery?"While Christian abolitionists were a principal force in theabolition of slavery, theBiblesanctioned the use of regulated slavery in theOld Testamentand whether or not theNew Testamentcondemned or sanctioned slavery has been strongly disputed. Passages in the Bible have historically been used by both pro-slavery advocates and slavery abolitionists to support their respective views."
The Bible doesn't sanction the Slavery of Black People. IT refers to the Babylonian Captivity, even then, It states that it's wrong to own another human. IT was used by both sides, the abolitionists and the pro-slavery advocates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery
wstfld
No.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment