Hentenza said:

One of my grandkids went through it so I have seen it.

Click to expand...

I hope, for their sake, you were at least understanding of what they were going through. I know more than a few who faced complete condemnation, and a couple were even thrown out of the house for daring to be different. It does happen, unfortunately.

Hentenza said:

Maybe you never have and are just regurgitating far left nonsense.

Click to expand...

Nah, I know more than a few people who have gone through this, and similar, experiences.

Hentenza said:

Who? If I was a teacher in a school district that required the use of preferred pronouns then it would be the school district.

Click to expand...

Did you know that school districts also require teachers to go in front of a room full of kids and teach them stuff? If they refused to do that too, I highly doubt they'd continue being employed there.

Hentenza said:

If I worked for a company that requires them then it would be the company.

Click to expand...

If you worked for a plumber, you'd be required to fix toilets. If you refused to do that, would they still pay you to work there?

Hentenza said:

Fortunately, so far the courts have ruled that forcing them is unconstitutional because it falls under compelled speech.

Click to expand...

In some cases, but not every one. I believe it depends on the jurisdiction.

-- A2SG, how dare a school district compel math teachers to talk about numbers all day long! Maybe they would prefer to discuss poetry....

Valletta said:

What is sedition?​

Simply put, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a bipartisan think tank, sedition "is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government."

Is sedition a crime?​

Yes. In the U.S. Code, under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, sedition is characterized as "seditious conspiracy," which is defined as:

"Two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspir(ing) to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority."

What is sedition? The laws, penalties and legitimacy of Trump's claims

Here’s a brief look at what sedition is under U.S. law, the penalties, and whether the lawmakers will face charges.

www.wbaltv.com

Click to expand...

In both the UCMJ and the US code, it is made perfectly clear that "force" must be involved in sedition. This is the essential factor that keeps the actual sedition laws free from violating the Bill of Rights.

stevevw said:

Who ever has to mention him every day and be completely consumed with him lol.

Are you kidding. The ABC is like the BBC lol. I would not trust them at all. Another State controlled media who push a partisan narrative.

Click to expand...

The statue was real, and not reported only by ABC.

Valletta said:

Do you realize I quote an AI overview and you quoted just one law?

Click to expand...

Nobody will be charged under the AI overview.

Hentenza said:

Job requirements? So you agree then that preferred pronouns and names are forced on people under the threat of loosing their jobs.

Click to expand...

If that's a requirement of the job, sure. Just like a plumber is required by his employer to work on toilets. If you don't like the requirements of the job you're being paid to do, you don't have to do it any longer.

Hentenza said:

And I guess you are ok with that.

Click to expand...

My boss requires me to go to a certain building for about 8 hours at a time and do stuff. I'm okay with it because I get paid for doing that stuff. But if I suddenly decided I didn't want to do any of it any more, I doubt he'd keep paying me.

Pretty much how jobs work.

Hentenza said:

So three percent of the population does indeed dominate this requirement.

Click to expand...

Not really. I doubt there are many within that three percent who employ teachers. A few, sure, but not all.

-- A2SG, and only insofar as the employee agrees to continue working for them....

Both.

Adidas or Nike?

BCP1928 said:

He would if there was any evidence for them.

Click to expand...

What evidence does a Christian who believes in God use. Or a scientists who supports the idea of consciousness beyond brain.

BCP1928 said:

Why not, if there was evidence for them?

Click to expand...

Because the evidence your talking about (empiricle and naturalistic) or material in nature. Is impossible to use to prove ideas like God or other immaterial beliefs. If it was verifiable by science then it would no longer be immaterial or supernatural. Or imatterially based such as consciousness beyond brain.

Science will relegate consciousness as a physical epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So how can it possibly even entertain possibilities that are based on immaterial causes that have no physical processes to measure. Or who interpret even miracles as some physical explanation that cannot be explained. Still physical in nature.

BCP1928 said:

Sure, but those are all religious positions. The methodological materialism of science is as indifferent to them as it is to theism.

Click to expand...

Ok so how can it be used if its completely indifferent. It would be like using physics to explain the experience of beauty and love.

BCP1928 said:

Perhaps so, but nobody here is doing that. Mostly what we are doing is pointing out to you how lame your argument is. We don't need to deny "immaterial possibilities" iin order to do that, even if we knew what you thought they were.

Click to expand...

You just agreed that "When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science".

So if this is the case when you dismiss ancient or indigenous knowledge as unreal or make believe this is using material science to impose a material metaphysics on those who believe in a immaterial metaphysics as the basis for reality.

This automatically discounts and dismisses all explainations such as knowledge from belief, spirituality, conscious experiences of nature and reality as unreal and make believe.

This is not science but belief. This is imposing one metaphysical belief over another epistemically and ontologically ie the only true and real reality is a material one and the only way we can know reality is by material sciences or methological naturalism.

BCP1928 said:

Who knows? It's still kind of murky what it is you are trying to prove. The "immaterial worldviews of fundamental reality???" What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

Its only murky if you want to restrict everything to the material and naturalistic worldview. Of course it will be because anything that cannot be measured in material terms will be unknown and unexplained.

But thats not because its unreal or does not exist. Only that the wrong method or paradigm is being used to understand this. Its like trying to use biology to understand psychology of the mind. Even worse, like using math to work out whether love is real.

timothyu said:

I would be more concerned about the political strife that permeates the airwaves encouraging participation in the ways of man, not the Kingdom. This nonsense reaches far more than music. Better yet how about when nations push the idea of free enterprise and every man for themselves, thriving on selfshness. I think it goes further than music which in itself is subjective

Click to expand...

Oh absolutely. I was just touching upon the dimension I experienced.

I used to worship black metal like it was de facto a god. I reaped what I sowed. Demonic attacks and thoughts completely overflowing me, bodily shakes and psychosis-esque chanting. I called upon Jesus to cleanse me, though. He... took away a lot more than I was anticipating.

Welcome to CF!

If you're not already doing this, I'd recommend visiting a nearby Catholic parish for the next few months, to experience what worship in the Catholic tradition is like. You won't be able to receive Communion there for now, but you'll be able to participate in the rest of the liturgy. There may be service opportunities there as well that would be open to visitors and newcomers, and that would give you a sense of the ministries you could participate in as part of that congregation.

Hentenza said:

That is not for the school to decide. If the child fears their parents then the authorities might need to be involved.

Click to expand...

Depends on the situation, really. If there is a fear of violence, sure. But if the fear is just that the parents might not understand, maybe a little time to figure things out is warranted.

Hentenza said:

Yes it is. The parents are the final say so on what their child is called not the school.

Click to expand...

So if Charles wants to be called Chuck or Charlie, the school has to obtain the parents permission first?

Hentenza said:

Irrelevant. It is the parent‘s decision.

Click to expand...

I think the kid should have some say in the matter. Parents don't control every tiny aspect of a kid's life, ya know. If the parents are such control freaks, that may well explain why a kid wouldn't want them to know they want to be called a different name.

Hentenza said:

Wow, just wow.

Click to expand...

Hardly unusual. I remember back when I went to school (this would have been back in the late 60s, early 70s) more than a few kids would dress one way before they left the house, and change into something else before they got to school, because their parents wouldn't approve of what they wanted to wear. How is that any different?

-- A2SG, experimenting with identity is a major component of adolescence, after all, not just for trans kids....

Fervent said:

when the whole joke behind the cross dressing was that it was an absurd idea, it's not an accepted practice.

Click to expand...

And yet, it is accepted.

Fervent said:

In fact, your example speaks to just how unacceptable it was since it was considered so far beyond the pale that it was immediately funny seeing a man in woman's clothing.

Click to expand...

Not always done for humor or satire, you know. Remember Shakespeare featured many stories involving women (or men) posing as a different gender for many different plot related reasons.

Fervent said:

Cross dressing, sure. Drag? That's not got a long history, and from its inception has been seen as the territory of a degenerate oversexualized subculture.

Click to expand...

Drag actually has a very long history. Drag has origins in mummer's plays, a folk form of theatre that dates back to at least the 13th century. Also, there's Commedia dell'arte, which dates from at least the 16th century, though it has roots as far back as ancient Rome.

Fervent said:

Your conflating the two just shows how desperate you are.

Click to expand...

I conflated the two because both drag and cross dressing in general are acceptable forms of entertainment, and have been for centuries. The contention that society does not accept the practice is false.

Any objections to or disapproval of drag or cross dressing is entirely on the individual. Not society.

-- A2SG, and there are even certain famous conservative political figures who did not disapprove....

So I was looking into this idea a little bit more and it turns out a guy named Paul Tillich already had the idea like 70 years ago. Don't you just hate when that happens? It's like when you think of a good invention that will make you rich and then you google it and somebody already made it and it's not even that successful. Anyways apparently he is Lutheran which is crazy because I am Lutheran too. And he has German ancestry and lived in Illinois? I am thinking that I am an incarnation of this guy...I ALSO had a girlfriend named Hannah

RDKirk said:

Who has the fixation on Trump?

Click to expand...

Who ever has to mention him every day and be completely consumed with him lol.

RDKirk said:

Golden Trump statue unveiled at C-PAC

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.

www.abc.net.au

Click to expand...

Are you kidding. The ABC is like the BBC lol. I would not trust them at all. Another State controlled media who push a partisan narrative.

We've already played these baby games when the left tried to tie David Duke to Trump, because of an endorsement.

...Now they want to portray Fuentes as the voice of the party.

essentialsaltes said:

DOGE claimed to have slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, but it was impossible for outside ‍financial experts to verify that because the unit did not provide detailed public accounting of its work.

Click to expand...

At least I don't have to pay so much for Left-wing propaganda now.

I feel much better now.

Hans Blaster said:

So what. Your post has nothing to do with the Mayor of NYC not having any powers over who does or does not get into the USA.

Click to expand...

He doesn't need those powers. Immigrants come all the time. Now I predict the Muslim ones will head to New York, because the mayor is a Muslim.

...Watch as mosques start popping up like weeds.

PloverWing said:

As an aside:



Do you mean Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist? He's a cool guy, but I had no idea anyone venerated him as a god.

Click to expand...

I don't like him and I refuse to give him the reverence of using his middle name.

Gene2memE said:

Do you not understand the meaning of the term 'OECD nations'?

Click to expand...

Do you think that it matters in the reality of the world, which nations participate in that? The comment was made that socialistic economies are better for the poor than capitalist ones, while excluding a huge number of countries in the data set. That's not useful.

PloverWing said:

I've heard sermons to this effect, but I don't buy it. It weakens the definitions of "god" and "worship" if we just mean "something I value" or "something of very high priority to me".

When I use the word "worship", it includes a sense of the sacred or holy or (to use Rudolf Otto's word) numinous. Financial success might be something a person values and pursues to a fault, but it's hard for me to imagine people seeing money as genuinely numinous. Reddit can be a tremendous time-thief ("Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread?", indeed), but, again, numinous?

By contrast, I think the idols mentioned in the Old Testament really were perceived as embodying spirit-beings, or maybe the numinous aspects of the sun, fertility, the earth, and so on. It's tempting to apply these OT passages to modern activities like shrewd financial investing, but most modern Americans aren't genuine polytheists in the way that the ancients were. They saw gods everywhere. Post-Enlightenment, many Americans see gods nowhere.

Click to expand...

I trust Paul's usage of the word worship. I would also refer to Matthew 6:24.

jacks said:

Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between "false god" and "idol". I tend to think that people make "idols" of many things. That is they place that thing above God in importance. An obvious one is money. Not that they think money is something that is truly a god (false god), rather that it is something they value above all else. (idol).

Hopefully what I said makes some sense...

Click to expand...

I think the parable of the 10 Virgins was partially about this

Fervent said:

There seem to be 2 questions at play, the first being whether it is possible to live as if God does not exist and the second whether simply valuing things elevates them to the point of "worship" and attaining "god" status. The first of these, I believe, is a categorical no. God is such an all-encompassing reality that we cannot effectively deny His existence because something will need to fill the vacuum we create in doing so. But whether this patchwork world picture contains anything that can be called a "god" in and of itself is questionable. So in one sense, the atheist is nothing but a fool trying to live an untenable reality. But is he still an atheist? I would say yes, and so "atheism" as a concept is a sensible one to speak of.

Click to expand...

I would say that an atheist is able to convince himself that there are no gods under an atheist framework. But under a Christian framework, I believe scripture suggests that the things we give our attention to are important, so much so that worship itself can be ultimately boiled down to paying attention to something. This is seen literally in Numbers 21:8–9 and fulfilled by the crucifixion. I believe the things we pay attention to (whether inanimate or animate) are gods, and we should strive to focus on the True God, Jesus Christ, at all times. Under these parameters I hope it should be easy to see why even an atheist could worship multiple gods.