PDA

View Full Version : AZ Senator: Church attendance should be mandatory



Rusty Jones
03-27-2015, 06:00 PM
http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory#WNPoll146157

PHOENIX (KPHO/KTVK) - Each year a few ideas get proposed at the state Capitol that have people shaking their heads.

This year: Mandatory church attendance.

An Arizona state senator thinks it is a good idea for the American people.

State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, brought it up during a committee meeting Tuesday while lawmakers were debating a gun bill concerning concealed weapons permits, not religion.

Allen explained that without a "moral rebirth" in the country, more people may feel the need to carry a weapon.

"I believe what's happening to our country is that there's a moral erosion of the soul of America," she said.

"It's the soul that is corrupt. How we get back to a moral rebirth I don't know. Since we are slowly eroding religion at every opportunity that we have. Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth," she told the committee.

"But since that would not be allowed and we would not even be debating that, I'm going to vote yes that people who are responsible who have a CCW permit don't have to worry about their guns as they're out and about and doing business in whatever building they're in except ones that where they aren't allowed," she said.

Democratic Sen. Steve Farley of Tucson, who was at that same meeting, posted Allen's comments on social media, and said he believes the idea goes against the U.S. Constitution.

"Even if you believe that would stem the moral decay, I think the Constitution makes it very clear that our country is founded on the pillar of separation of church and state," Farley said.

sandsjames
03-27-2015, 06:05 PM
She's a nut job, for sure. Equating religion with moral compass is probably one of the biggest turn-offs for non-believers.

I will say, though, that it's no different than making people attend mandatory LGBT, and other "tolerance/education", classes.

Rusty Jones
03-27-2015, 06:08 PM
Good thing I don't live in Arizona, but I'm wondering if this bill has any provisions for exclusions. For example, what if you're a Seventh Day Adventist? Would you still have to go to another church on Sunday? What about non-Christian religions?

Assuming that I'd go in order to avoid paying fines (which I'd likely toss in the trash), I'd quickly a become a Muslim (in name only). You know what sucks about church on Sunday? Church-goers only have one day a week to sleep in (as opposed to two), and by the time church is over... the rest of your day is spent enduring the Sunday Night Blues.

At least if you're Muslim, you go to the mosque on Friday nights. You get that shit done and over with after work, and the rest of the weekend is yours.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
03-27-2015, 08:45 PM
She's a nut job, for sure. Equating religion with moral compass is probably one of the biggest turn-offs for non-believers.

I will say, though, that it's no different than making people attend mandatory LGBT, and other "tolerance/education", classes.

Not sure she really wants to make it mandatory, but if so, does this one comment or belief make her a "nut job?" If so, is Obama a nut job? How about Pelosi? Reed? Holder? This list goes on...

garhkal
03-27-2015, 09:38 PM
She's a nut job, for sure. Equating religion with moral compass is probably one of the biggest turn-offs for non-believers.

I will say, though, that it's no different than making people attend mandatory LGBT, and other "tolerance/education", classes.

Exactly. If one can be forced to attend a mandated LGBT sensitivity class, then one should be able to get forced to attend church. But you know while the former is happening with frequency, the latter will never fly.

Rusty Jones
03-28-2015, 10:14 AM
Exactly. If one can be forced to attend a mandated LGBT sensitivity class, then one should be able to get forced to attend church. But you know while the former is happening with frequency, the latter will never fly.

False analogy.

First off, I have no idea what LGBT tolerance classes you and SJ are talking about that everyone is being forced to go to. I've never been to one. Secondly, who is mandating these classes? Is the government, at any particular level, making all citizens under its jurisdiction go? Or are some employers (whose clock the employees are on, by the way) mandating it? Bear in mind that if it's the latter, that employer has to protect itself - especially when some of the employees might be LGBT. If those employeee are being harassed or otherwise mistreated on the job because they're LGBT, then that employer had BETTER be able to produce some evidence of prevention measures.

But whose ass is on the line if someone doesn't go to church on Sundays?

sandsjames
03-28-2015, 12:14 PM
False analogy.

First off, I have no idea what LGBT tolerance classes you and SJ are talking about that everyone is being forced to go to. I've never been to one. Secondly, who is mandating these classes? Is the government, at any particular level, making all citizens under its jurisdiction go? Or are some employers (whose clock the employees are on, by the way) mandating it? Bear in mind that if it's the latter, that employer has to protect itself - especially when some of the employees might be LGBT. If those employeee are being harassed or otherwise mistreated on the job because they're LGBT, then that employer had BETTER be able to produce some evidence of prevention measures.

But whose ass is on the line if someone doesn't go to church on Sundays?

The classes I'm talking about were in the news last week. It was at a college and a Christian group refused to go. I'll try to find the story to link it.

sandsjames
03-28-2015, 12:15 PM
Not sure she really wants to make it mandatory, but if so, does this one comment or belief make her a "nut job?" If so, is Obama a nut job? How about Pelosi? Reed? Holder? This list goes on...

Yes, it makes her a nut job, thinking that everyone else would be better off if they attended church and that it would help improve the morals of the country.

The others you mentioned are also nut jobs, no doubt. Craziness is bipartisan.

Rollyn01
03-28-2015, 03:47 PM
The classes I'm talking about were in the news last week. It was at a college and a Christian group refused to go. I'll try to find the story to link it.

Maybe it's hyperbole to think so, but I would think that Christians being against "tolerance classes" kind of sends the wrong message seeing as they would want people to believe they are about love and grace. However, being that this is in a college, I would think that the major issue is the prevention of hate crimes and the violence that comes with it.

sandsjames
03-29-2015, 11:55 AM
Maybe it's hyperbole to think so, but I would think that Christians being against "tolerance classes" kind of sends the wrong message seeing as they would want people to believe they are about love and grace. And I would think that liberals, being open and accepting of every lifestyle, would be more than happy to attend church with the "open minds" instead of being prejudiced against the conservative Christians.


However, being that this is in a college, I would think that the major issue is the prevention of hate crimes and the violence that comes with it.Too bad people don't realize that this sort of "forced" tolerance creates resentment, increasing the conflict. I don't care how people live their lives. I just don't want to be forced to be brought in to that world.

For instance, let's say that I don't like country music. I don't care if people listen to it. I don't even care if I hear it playing in someone's car as they drive by. I would, however, have an issue with being forced to go to a seminar and have to listen to a lecture and be educated on how to treat those who like country music.

garhkal
03-29-2015, 07:29 PM
Too bad people don't realize that this sort of "forced" tolerance creates resentment, increasing the conflict. I don't care how people live their lives. I just don't want to be forced to be brought in to that world.

Exactly SJ. Many of my fellow military folk over the years, felt MORE resentful than ever cause of the consistent forced 'heritage months.

Stalwart
03-30-2015, 01:47 AM
I doubt ... very seriously doubt that legislation that mandatese attendance at a religious service could pass or be signed into law and am just about positive that it could not stand up to judicial review.

Based on this state Senator's statement on this alone I don't think she is a "nut job"; a quick Google search of other things she has said and the result of that aggregate would make me think she is a nut job.


However, being that this is in a college, I would think that the major issue is the prevention of hate crimes and the violence that comes with it.

Based on what I have read on the LGBT training (this is kind of local for us here) in some part the training is aimed at providing the university a CYA if there is an incident on campus -- "you were briefed about this kind of thing ... you violated the student constitution on inclusion ... you are thereby suspended for 2 semesters."

The group that filed the request for exemption to attend the LGBT training requested a religious exemption but they are not a religious group; they are a political group. George Washington did say that it would consider individual requests from members for religious exemption; I wonder how many of them have done that? I think they have a legitimate reason for protesting mandatory attendance; and the campus labeling them as a hate group for not wanting to attend based on their ideological beliefs could be considered intolerance in its own right. Ironic, don'tcha think?

Based on what I have heard here locally (I attended Georgetown for my 2d Masters) I have observed that George Washington University is a very politically liberal campus. Now ... they many have a particular program that a highly conservative individual really wants to attend, but a prospective student should know that going in they will be in the minority of the student population -- sort of like a highly liberal LGBT activist who applied and then attended Brigham Young University would probably be/feel 'out of place.' Universities -- especially private ones -- are not just a place to go to class, they are a community with a set of values that are representative of what the University wants to portray. They are a community that people choose to attend; if they don't like the community they may want to consider a place where they would feel more welcome.

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 10:40 AM
Universities -- especially private ones -- are not just a place to go to class, they are a community with a set of values that are representative of what the University wants to portray. They are a community that people choose to attend; if they don't like the community they may want to consider a place where they would feel more welcome. Ahh...so what you're saying is that non-liberals should only attend religious colleges because all other colleges are liberal petri dishes.

Towns are communities. If one doesn't like the values of a town, they should live in another town. Hell, if it's a racist town, there is no reason to institute civil rights in that town because people know what they are getting when they move there.

Rollyn01
03-30-2015, 11:00 AM
And I would think that liberals, being open and accepting of every lifestyle, would be more than happy to attend church with the "open minds" instead of being prejudiced against the conservative Christians.

Too bad people don't realize that this sort of "forced" tolerance creates resentment, increasing the conflict. I don't care how people live their lives. I just don't want to be forced to be brought in to that world.

For instance, let's say that I don't like country music. I don't care if people listen to it. I don't even care if I hear it playing in someone's car as they drive by. I would, however, have an issue with being forced to go to a seminar and have to listen to a lecture and be educated on how to treat those who like country music.

False equivalence. Going to church is not mandatory for people who are not apart of the religion. Or are you saying that it should be mandatory for everyone to go church no matter what religion they may or may not have? Are you also saying that people who don't like country should be able to opt out of a seminary about treating those who like country music? If mistreatment against those who like country music gets to the point where it can become violent is on the rise, are you really going to complain about having to attend a mandatory seminar, or are you really going to complain that people should stop treating country music lovers badly?

If this all sound ridiculous... well, I at least made it known that what I was thinking might be hyperbole. Not that it means it's more correct though.

Rollyn01
03-30-2015, 11:06 AM
Ahh...so what you're saying is that non-liberals should only attend religious colleges because all other colleges are liberal petri dishes.

Towns are communities. If one doesn't like the values of a town, they should live in another town. Hell, if it's a racist town, there is no reason to institute civil rights in that town because people know what they are getting when they move there.

Are you saying it's ok to be racist?

Rusty Jones
03-30-2015, 11:24 AM
And I would think that liberals, being open and accepting of every lifestyle, would be more than happy to attend church with the "open minds" instead of being prejudiced against the conservative Christians.

Say, whaaaat? There is a big difference from church and LGBT tolerance courses. The only way the two could be equal is if the LGBT course was every week for the rest of your life, AND these course weren't about tolerance - they'd actually have to try to convert you to some form of LGBT. Because then, they'd both be trying to get you to live a certain way of life.

Now, if you were talking about a religious tolerance course as being equivalent to the LGBT tolerance course... then we'd have something to talk about. Otherwise, you just presented another false analogy.


Too bad people don't realize that this sort of "forced" tolerance creates resentment, increasing the conflict. I don't care how people live their lives. I just don't want to be forced to be brought in to that world.

Forced tolerance? Right... a course teaching people to how to put aside their views on sexual preference in order to treat people with the same respect that they would want themselves is... forcing them to be "brought into that world." It's not. If I went to a religious tolerance course, is that forcing me to be Christian or Muslim or anything of the sort?


For instance, let's say that I don't like country music. I don't care if people listen to it. I don't even care if I hear it playing in someone's car as they drive by. I would, however, have an issue with being forced to go to a seminar and have to listen to a lecture and be educated on how to treat those who like country music.

If people who listen to country music are routinely subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence because of the music that they listen to - you know, much in the same way that those in LGBT community are - I'd be all for it.


Exactly SJ. Many of my fellow military folk over the years, felt MORE resentful than ever cause of the consistent forced 'heritage months.

That's more reflective of your own personal problems.

Rollyn01
03-30-2015, 12:12 PM
Say, whaaaat? There is a big difference from church and LGBT tolerance courses. The only way the two could be equal is if the LGBT course was every week for the rest of your life, AND these course weren't about tolerance - they'd actually have to try to convert you to some form of LGBT. Because then, they'd both be trying to get you to live a certain way of life.

Now, if you were talking about a religious tolerance course as being equivalent to the LGBT tolerance course... then we'd have something to talk about. Otherwise, you just presented another false analogy.



Forced tolerance? Right... a course teaching people to how to put aside their views on sexual preference in order to treat people with the same respect that they would want themselves is... forcing them to be "brought into that world." It's not. If I went to a religious tolerance course, is that forcing me to be Christian or Muslim or anything of the sort?



If people who listen to country music are routinely subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence because of the music that they listen to - you know, much in the same way that those in LGBT community are - I'd be all for it.



That's more reflective of your own personal problems.

I tried not to say it in so many words, but who am I to complain about clarification?

Rusty Jones
03-30-2015, 12:38 PM
I tried not to say it in so many words, but who am I to complain about clarification?

I won't dismiss something that I'm not willing to dispute. That's how I roll.

Rollyn01
03-30-2015, 01:21 PM
I won't dismiss something that I'm not willing to dispute. That's how I roll.

You old salt you, why aren't we friends already? :cool:

But seriously, what are the chances that they will understand how backward they sound with the use of false equivalency? I was pushing in the direction of hyperbole by connecting the dots and extrapolating, they're not even using the same graph (I hate that math has been shoved into my head so much that I can use it in causal conversations like this).

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 03:14 PM
Are you saying it's ok to be racist?

Not at all...please sense the sarcasm and the comparison to Stalwart's remarks.

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 03:24 PM
Forced tolerance? Right... a course teaching people to how to put aside their views on sexual preference in order to treat people with the same respect that they would want themselves is... forcing them to be "brought into that world." It's not. If I went to a religious tolerance course, is that forcing me to be Christian or Muslim or anything of the sort? The courses should be about treating people with respect, then it doesn't matter which "group" you are talking about. Becoming specific creates resentment, right or wrong.

It's like DUI training. Those who are going to follow the rules don't need the training. Those who don't follow the rules aren't going to change.



If people who listen to country music are routinely subject to discrimination, harassment, and violence because of the music that they listen to - you know, much in the same way that those in LGBT community are - I'd be all for it.



Ahh, I see. So I should be ok to drive through any neighborhood in the Baltimore/DC area blasting my country music because there would be no fear of discrimination, harassment, or violence. Good to know.

Rollyn01
03-30-2015, 03:50 PM
Not at all...please sense the sarcasm and the comparison to Stalwart's remarks.

Sorry bout that, I haven't had my morning coffee at the time. Time to hit the store for more of the great brew. Putting on my sarcasm detector. :cool:

Rusty Jones
03-30-2015, 03:56 PM
The courses should be about treating people with respect, then it doesn't matter which "group" you are talking about.

Oh, but it does. Many people out there consider themselves to be respectful people, but feel that certain groups are exempt from that need to be treated with respect, or that certain groups are deserving of disrespect. I know you're not that naïve.


Becoming specific creates resentment, right or wrong.

Like I said to gahrkal, that’s more indicative of personal issues. If I had to go to a mandatory LGBT tolerance course, it's not going to make me resentful towards those in the LGBT community. My guess is that anyone who is resentful after attending that course was probably resentful long before it.


It's like DUI training. Those who are going to follow the rules don't need the training. Those who don't follow the rules aren't going to change.

False analogy. Specific rules have specific compliance requirements. I may know not to rape a female student on campus, but that doesn't mean that I'm aware of what the legal BAC limits are for the state in which the college campus is located.


Ahh, I see. So I should be ok to drive through any neighborhood in the Baltimore/DC area blasting my country music because there would be no fear of discrimination, harassment, or violence. Good to know.

Can you tell me why you think you should be in fear of those things in the Baltimore/DC area? I can count the number of times that I've been there on my hands, and each time was less than 24 hours... so I really don't know enough about the place to dispute what you're saying. What I DO know is that there's plenty of military in that area (military, of course, being from all walks of life), and that most of the area just outside the Baltimore/DC metro area is all country... so I can't imagine there not being a good amount of country music listeners in the area. Please tell me if I'm wrong about that.

I can pull up plenty of articles of members of the LGBT community being victims of discrimination, harassment, and violence. Can you show me any articles showing this happening to someone for listening to country music? Is this mainly happening in Baltimore and DC?

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 04:34 PM
Oh, but it does. Many people out there consider themselves to be respectful people, but feel that certain groups are exempt from that need to be treated with respect, or that certain groups are deserving of disrespect. I know you're not that naïve. I don't disagree, but those people aren't going to gain anything from "training" anyway.




Like I said to gahrkal, that’s more indicative of personal issues. If I had to go to a mandatory LGBT tolerance course, it's not going to make me resentful towards those in the LGBT community. My guess is that anyone who is resentful after attending that course was probably resentful long before it. Again, I agree, so what is the point? If we know that a course is going to make those who are already causing problems worse then why have it?




False analogy. Specific rules have specific compliance requirements. I may know not to rape a female student on campus, but that doesn't mean that I'm aware of what the legal BAC limits are for the state in which the college campus is located. So you need a course about not raping women to be taught what the BAC limit is? That's very easily accomplished without a course about rape.




Can you tell me why you think you should be in fear of those things in the Baltimore/DC area? I can count the number of times that I've been there on my hands, and each time was less than 24 hours... so I really don't know enough about the place to dispute what you're saying. What I DO know is that there's plenty of military in that area (military, of course, being from all walks of life), and that most of the area just outside the Baltimore/DC metro area is all country... so I can't imagine there not being a good amount of country music listeners in the area. Please tell me if I'm wrong about that. I only specifically mention that area because I thought you were familiar with that area. Isn't that where you drive taxi? Or am I way off? Either way, you are avoiding the point. Do you think a person can be free of fear from violence, discrimination, etc, while blasting country music driving through the 'hood? Should those neighborhoods be required to attend sensitivity training, or would that just increase the issue of dislike and resentment?


I can pull up plenty of articles of members of the LGBT community being victims of discrimination, harassment, and violence. Can you show me any articles showing this happening to someone for listening to country music? Is this mainly happening in Baltimore and DC?Again, I mentioned the area because I thought you were familiar with it. Nothing more. And as far as those articles, nope...I've got nothing. As far as the LGBT ones? I guess it depends. I'm not that naïve to say it doesn't happen, though much of it is labeled as anti-LGBT when it's not. For instance, take a look at the recent comments by Jamie Foxx at music awards making comments about Bruce Jenner and catching hell for it. Do I think what he said was over the line? Not at all. Would sensitivity training change that? Nope. He made a joke and people who are worried that it might offend someone threw a fit.

Bottom line, there are hate crimes and it's unfortunate. No amount of training is going to change that. The only thing that changes is the group of the week that is being victimized.

Rusty Jones
03-30-2015, 05:20 PM
I don't disagree, but those people aren't going to gain anything from "training" anyway.

But the school will - i.e., CYA. That's what it's all about. As much as we hate being "victims" of CYA, sometimes you've gotta put yourself in the shoes of those making executive decisions.


Again, I agree, so what is the point? If we know that a course is going to make those who are already causing problems worse then why have it?

Like I said, CYA. People can still be resentful after the course is over, but they'll be resentful AND will know fully well what is expected of them and what the consequences are of failing to meet those expectations.


So you need a course about not raping women to be taught what the BAC limit is? That's very easily accomplished without a course about rape.

You must've forgotten what I was responding to. Let me refresh your memory:
It's like DUI training. Those who are going to follow the rules don't need the training. Those who don't follow the rules aren't going to change.

You're basically saying that anyone who breaks one rule will break them all, when that's not true. Not everyone's personal morals will line up with every rule. In addition, each rule has its own requirements for compliance. That being said, just because I follow one rule doesn't mean that I'm not going to break another (either willfully, or out of ignorance). That said, yes, there does need to be specific training on DUI, because people need to know what constitutes a DUI. Some people need to know what constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault. By your original logic, being sexual assault and DUI, anyone who breaks one rule will break the other... because they're nothing but rule-breakers.


I only specifically mention that area because I thought you were familiar with that area. Isn't that where you drive taxi? Or am I way off?

I drove taxis in Norfolk. You're about a four-hour drive off.


Either way, you are avoiding the point. Do you think a person can be free of fear from violence, discrimination, etc, while blasting country music driving through the 'hood?

I don't know about country but, at least in my experience, you're good to go with metal and classic rock. I've blasted that in the projects when I drove taxis. I personally don't listen to country myself, but I actually don't mind it if it's playing.

I'm also going to point this out - when you look at your local news about things happening in the 'hood, look at who the victims are. They're people who live there themselves that got killed or assaulted because of something that they themselves were involved it. I don't think I've ever - in my life - seen an article about scared people who were driving around and got lost and ended up in the 'hood that got killed because of it. Not saying it's never happened, but I've never heard of it.


Should those neighborhoods be required to attend sensitivity training, or would that just increase the issue of dislike and resentment?

That depends: IS what you're worried about actually happening? And if so, who needs to force them to attend for "CYA" purposes; in other words, whose ass is on the line?


Again, I mentioned the area because I thought you were familiar with it. Nothing more. And as far as those articles, nope...I've got nothing. As far as the LGBT ones? I guess it depends. I'm not that naïve to say it doesn't happen, though much of it is labeled as anti-LGBT when it's not. For instance, take a look at the recent comments by Jamie Foxx at music awards making comments about Bruce Jenner and catching hell for it. Do I think what he said was over the line? Not at all. Would sensitivity training change that? Nope. He made a joke and people who are worried that it might offend someone threw a fit.

Here's the thing: whether or not Jaime Foxx is anti-LGBT is irrelevant. I thought the joke was funny myself, but would I have said that on national TV, Twitter, or around people that I'm not able to trust to not run to the media? Definitely not. I'm sure he meant no harm by it, BUT... Jaime Foxx is smarter than that, and you would be too if you were a celebrity.


Bottom line, there are hate crimes and it's unfortunate. No amount of training is going to change that. The only thing that changes is the group of the week that is being victimized.

Again, it's all about CYA for the organizations that mandate the training. They could likely really give two shits whether or not you hate gay people, as long as your hatred of gay people doesn't get the company in trouble.

Stalwart
03-30-2015, 06:54 PM
Ahh...so what you're saying is that non-liberals should only attend religious colleges because all other colleges are liberal petri dishes.

Towns are communities. If one doesn't like the values of a town, they should live in another town. Hell, if it's a racist town, there is no reason to institute civil rights in that town because people know what they are getting when they move there.

In the case of a an overly or devoutly religious person who is thinking about a college; if them attending a liberal college is going to sufficiently distract them from their education ... maybe, that is a decision they would have to make ... I would just hope they make an informed one. In the case of a town ... no; you are talking about someone actually discriminating (which is a violation of civil rights) vice a community that has a liberal or conservative majority.

I am just saying that people should know what they are getting themselves into. Kind of like saying if you don't like the cold and move to Buffalo, then bitch about the cold I am going to not be very sympathetic.

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 07:40 PM
But the school will - i.e., CYA. That's what it's all about. As much as we hate being "victims" of CYA, sometimes you've gotta put yourself in the shoes of those making executive decisions.



Like I said, CYA. People can still be resentful after the course is over, but they'll be resentful AND will know fully well what is expected of them and what the consequences are of failing to meet those expectations.



You must've forgotten what I was responding to. Let me refresh your memory:

You're basically saying that anyone who breaks one rule will break them all, when that's not true. Not everyone's personal morals will line up with every rule. In addition, each rule has its own requirements for compliance. That being said, just because I follow one rule doesn't mean that I'm not going to break another (either willfully, or out of ignorance). That said, yes, there does need to be specific training on DUI, because people need to know what constitutes a DUI. Some people need to know what constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault. By your original logic, being sexual assault and DUI, anyone who breaks one rule will break the other... because they're nothing but rule-breakers.



I drove taxis in Norfolk. You're about a four-hour drive off.



I don't know about country but, at least in my experience, you're good to go with metal and classic rock. I've blasted that in the projects when I drove taxis. I personally don't listen to country myself, but I actually don't mind it if it's playing.

I'm also going to point this out - when you look at your local news about things happening in the 'hood, look at who the victims are. They're people who live there themselves that got killed or assaulted because of something that they themselves were involved it. I don't think I've ever - in my life - seen an article about scared people who were driving around and got lost and ended up in the 'hood that got killed because of it. Not saying it's never happened, but I've never heard of it.



That depends: IS what you're worried about actually happening? And if so, who needs to force them to attend for "CYA" purposes; in other words, whose ass is on the line?



Here's the thing: whether or not Jaime Foxx is anti-LGBT is irrelevant. I thought the joke was funny myself, but would I have said that on national TV, Twitter, or around people that I'm not able to trust to not run to the media? Definitely not. I'm sure he meant no harm by it, BUT... Jaime Foxx is smarter than that, and you would be too if you were a celebrity.



Again, it's all about CYA for the organizations that mandate the training. They could likely really give two shits whether or not you hate gay people, as long as your hatred of gay people doesn't get the company in trouble.

Right...so you agree with my original point that this isn't about educating anyone and it's probably not going to make any difference. It is intended solely for CYA purposes. Looks like we see eye to eye on this.

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 07:45 PM
In the case of a an overly or devoutly religious person who is thinking about a college; if them attending a liberal college is going to sufficiently distract them from their education ... maybe, that is a decision they would have to make ... I would just hope they make an informed one. In the case of a town ... no; you are talking about someone actually discriminating (which is a violation of civil rights) vice a community that has a liberal or conservative majority.

I am just saying that people should know what they are getting themselves into. Kind of like saying if you don't like the cold and move to Buffalo, then bitch about the cold I am going to not be very sympathetic.

The bigger issue is that there shouldn't be liberal or conservative colleges that aren't completely private. If college is about an education than personal politics should not come into play at all. There should be no agenda.

So instead of going to a different school, how about we return the schools to that which they are intended...to educate, not indoctrinate. When looking at schools, one should be able to look for programs that meet the needs of the degree they wish to pursue, not one that follows their political biases.

garhkal
03-30-2015, 08:26 PM
That's more reflective of your own personal problems.

How so? How is something that others i worked with, reflective of MY issues?



Again, I agree, so what is the point? If we know that a course is going to make those who are already causing problems worse then why have it?

IMO its like politicians who pass laws they know are going to be impossible to enforce but they still push it.. Its a feel good thing that they are 'trying to do something'.


Bottom line, there are hate crimes and it's unfortunate. No amount of training is going to change that. The only thing that changes is the group of the week that is being victimized.

Unless those being victimized happen to be whites. As long as Holder is in charge of the DOJ, there will never be a 'hate crime' specification leveled at any crime where its X ethnicity on white.
And like Rusty said, its also often done to try and cover their butt.

sandsjames
03-30-2015, 08:28 PM
Unless those being victimized happen to be whites. As long as Holder is in charge of the DOJ, there will never be a 'hate crime' specification leveled at any crime where its X ethnicity on white.
And like Rusty said, its also often done to try and cover their butt.Why dude...why? Can't let one go by with out makin' whitey the victim, can you?

Stalwart
03-30-2015, 08:29 PM
The bigger issue is that there shouldn't be liberal or conservative colleges that aren't completely private. If college is about an education than personal politics should not come into play at all. There should be no agenda.

The university in question in the article is a private university.

That said, to an extent I agree with you, but any school over time is going to develop its 'community' in part reflective on where it is (ie. UC Berkley vs. University of Texas.) Since those public schools are receiving public funds from their states, it is (IMO) appropriate for the state to let the culture / community develop as they want it too ... again ... it is part of the 'community' and the prospective students (and parents who may be paying the bill) need to make informed decisions.


So instead of going to a different school, how about we return the schools to that which they are intended...to educate, not indoctrinate. When looking at schools, one should be able to look for programs that meet the needs of the degree they wish to pursue, not one that follows their political biases.

I would agree with you, but would offer that universities were never intended to be neutral and solely about the education. The earliest universities in the West were organized by the church; even in the American Colonies and in the early US universities were organized by churches -- some offered no religious 'test' but they were still organized around a 'Christian' organization. Liberalism in many colleges is a common theme, but it is also fairly easy to find Conservative oriented universities; it isn't so much the overt declaration of the Boards of Trustees but evident in the faculty they hire and retain. In many ways I think it is important to have schools that lean one way or the other ... to not only teach those who agree but to intellectually challenge those who don't. My original point was that if someone can't handle the challenge, they should not accept it. Higher education (outside of disciplines like mathematics or pure sciences) is about critical thought, not rogue memorization and a recitation of 'just the facts' and the expression of opinion and philosophy is important in that development.

I don't so much have any problem with a university that leans one way politically or the other. What is wrong is if the evaluation of your work is dependent on you agreeing with that leaning.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2015, 01:03 PM
Right...so you agree with my original point that this isn't about educating anyone and it's probably not going to make any difference. It is intended solely for CYA purposes. Looks like we see eye to eye on this.

Yes, but what we don't see eye to eye on is how you compared this to mandatory church on Sundays. CYA purposes - whether anyone likes them or not - is of a "functional" nature. It helps schools, employers, or other entities mitigate legal repercussions that come as a result of failing to do so.

But what does forcing people to go to church do?


How so? How is something that others i worked with, reflective of MY issues?

I'm not Asian or Pacific Islander. I'm not Latino/Hispanic. I'm not Native American (no, I'm not even descended from a Cherokee princess). Yet, when those months come, will you see me getting upset about it? Nope. There'd have to be some resentment in me for those months to stir up in the first place. Surely, as someone who is white and conservative, you'd be able to appreciate people in minority groups being able to have a month to look up to people other than musicians, actors, and athletes in order to show them what they're capable of doing; correct? I'm sure you'd love for them to be able to look up to scientists, engineers, inventors, Generals and Admirals, Medal of Honor recipients; instead of looking up to people making asses of themselves on some reality TV shows, correct?

Please tell me if I'm wrong about this. If you agree with what I'm saying, but still get pissed off at having these months... then clearly, there's no pleasing you. You're just a miserable person who always thinks he's getting the shaft.

sandsjames
03-31-2015, 03:36 PM
Yes, but what we don't see eye to eye on is how you compared this to mandatory church on Sundays. CYA purposes - whether anyone likes them or not - is of a "functional" nature. It helps schools, employers, or other entities mitigate legal repercussions that come as a result of failing to do so.

But what does forcing people to go to church do?



The same thing forcing people to attend anything does...strips the freedom of choice from individuals. Neither is right and neither should be allowed. Laws and regulations should be fro stopping people from doing stuff, not forcing them to.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2015, 03:43 PM
The same thing forcing people to attend anything does...strips the freedom of choice from individuals. Neither is right and neither should be allowed. Laws and regulations should be fro stopping people from doing stuff, not forcing them to.

Your answer is a cop out. I'm talking about a "functional" purpose, like CYA does for LGBT tolerance courses... but I see that you don't want to answer the question.

By the way, there is no freedom being taken away in the case of LGBT tolerance courses. If you don't want to go to LGBT tolerance courses, then you're more than welcome to find some place else to work or get an education. I hate doing that damned Information Assurance Awareness course every year... but is my employer requiring me to complete it a violation of my freedom of choice? Of course not... I'm free to leave the federal government if I hated taking the course that bad.

This is way different than a government forcing everyone to church. Quit playing dumb.

sandsjames
03-31-2015, 04:01 PM
Your answer is a cop out. I'm talking about a "functional" purpose, like CYA does for LGBT tolerance courses... but I see that you don't want to answer the question.

By the way, there is no freedom being taken away in the case of LGBT tolerance courses. If you don't want to go to LGBT tolerance courses, then you're more than welcome to find some place else to work or get an education.


Very true, just as if one doesn't like the fact that a cake shop won't put two male or two female figures on a wedding cake they are free to find a cake shop that will. Nobody is forcing them to shop a that particular cake shop.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2015, 04:11 PM
Very true, just as if one doesn't like the fact that a cake shop won't put two male or two female figures on a wedding cake they are free to find a cake shop that will. Nobody is forcing them to shop a that particular cake shop.

False analogy. You're comparing a company refusing to provide a service or product, to another for establishing criteria for continued membership.

Face it - you have no leg to stand on in comparing LGBT tolerance courses to mandatory church.

sandsjames
03-31-2015, 05:42 PM
False analogy. You're comparing a company refusing to provide a service or product, to another for establishing criteria for continued membership.

Face it - you have no leg to stand on in comparing LGBT tolerance courses to mandatory church.

The only requirement for the "membership" at a college is money to get into a college, otherwise people would be vetted before they were allowed. Now, if the college made it clear that there would be mandatory sensitivity training as it related to LGBT before the student was accepted to that college then it's on the student. However, if it wasn't a requirement for acceptance to the college then the college was doing what they do...taking money (because they are a business) without caring what type of person they were allowing in.

So, if the student knew beforehand that there would be mandatory LGBT training then the analogy with the cake shop works just fine. If it was a requirement after the fact then it's entirely the fault of the college and they should be reprimanded.

We can keep going forever with this so you can continue to point out my false analogies instead of addressing the point but I will address it. A state funded college, or high school, should not be preaching politically biased topics to it's students. Leave that for privately funded schools to do. CYA is not a good answer. It's a cop out. Make the courses available for students to take, if they choose, or make them part of the prerequisite that students need to earn their degree and are aware of beforehand.

Oh, and just as with memorials and statues, quit putting every hard done by social group of the week on a victim pedestal.

Rusty Jones
03-31-2015, 06:02 PM
The only requirement for the "membership" at a college is money to get into a college, otherwise people would be vetted before they were allowed. Now, if the college made it clear that there would be mandatory sensitivity training as it related to LGBT before the student was accepted to that college then it's on the student. However, if it wasn't a requirement for acceptance to the college then the college was doing what they do...taking money (because they are a business) without caring what type of person they were allowing in.

So, if the student knew beforehand that there would be mandatory LGBT training then the analogy with the cake shop works just fine. If it was a requirement after the fact then it's entirely the fault of the college and they should be reprimanded.

We can keep going forever with this so you can continue to point out my false analogies instead of addressing the point but I will address it. A state funded college, or high school, should not be preaching politically biased topics to it's students. Leave that for privately funded schools to do. CYA is not a good answer. It's a cop out. Make the courses available for students to take, if they choose, or make them part of the prerequisite that students need to earn their degree and are aware of beforehand.

Oh, and just as with memorials and statues, quit putting every hard done by social group of the week on a victim pedestal.

Here's the thing... this discussion isn't even about LGBT tolerance courses. It's about government mandated church attendance. Clearly, you have some sort of hang up about these LGBT tolerance courses... and it looks to me like I can look forward to you bringing it up again in the future in order to compare it to a legit gripe that someone has about something. Looks like the LGBT tolerance courses have replaced the gay wedding cake as your personal "but, but... Benghazi!"

sandsjames
03-31-2015, 06:18 PM
Here's the thing... this discussion isn't even about LGBT tolerance courses. It's about government mandated church attendance. Clearly, you have some sort of hang up about these LGBT tolerance courses... and it looks to me like I can look forward to you bringing it up again in the future in order to compare it to a legit gripe that someone has about something. Looks like the LGBT tolerance courses have replaced the gay wedding cake as your personal "but, but... Benghazi!"

It's amazing to me (I guess it shouldn't be) that even though I stated very clearly that I think it's crazy to even mention mandating church that you still find a way to create a disagreement.

And I've also mentioned that it's not about the LGBT. It's about ALL tolerance courses. How about a course to teach people to keep their pussies from getting all enflamed whenever someone says something they find "offensive"?

Rusty Jones
03-31-2015, 06:37 PM
It's amazing to me (I guess it shouldn't be) that even though I stated very clearly that I think it's crazy to even mention mandating church that you still find a way to create a disagreement.

You're saying that if mandatory LGBT tolerance courses can be required by schools and employers, that it's no difference from governments mandating church attendance for all citizens under their jurisdiction. That if you outlaw or allow one, you should treat the other the same. That's where the disagreement is.


And I've also mentioned that it's not about the LGBT. It's about ALL tolerance courses. How about a course to teach people to keep their pussies from getting all enflamed whenever someone says something they find "offensive"?

Great, so employers and schools and employers should allow the use of slurs (whether based on race, sex, sexual orientation), and other language on the premises without consequence? And anyone who says anything about it should be told not to let their pussy get enflamed? Come on, now!

garhkal
03-31-2015, 09:16 PM
Surely, as someone who is white and conservative, you'd be able to appreciate people in minority groups being able to have a month to look up to people other than musicians, actors, and athletes in order to show them what they're capable of doing; correct? I'm sure you'd love for them to be able to look up to scientists, engineers, inventors, Generals and Admirals, Medal of Honor recipients; instead of looking up to people making asses of themselves on some reality TV shows, correct?

Please tell me if I'm wrong about this. If you agree with what I'm saying, but still get pissed off at having these months... then clearly, there's no pleasing you. You're just a miserable person who always thinks he's getting the shaft.

One month may be. BUt when its one month each and every year, and if one does NOT participate/show support, one gets graded DOWN on their Evals (or so it seems).
Just like saying women can have their "Single sex only' fitness centers is ok, but if a guy wants one its wrong and sexist. It sets up a double standard that imo is the opposite of equality. It just shifts the Discrimination to being on the other foot.

sandsjames
03-31-2015, 09:39 PM
Great, so employers and schools and employers should allow the use of slurs (whether based on race, sex, sexual orientation), and other language on the premises without consequence? And anyone who says anything about it should be told not to let their pussy get enflamed? Come on, now! NO, that's not what I'm saying (and when it comes to slurs, I'm pretty sure college level people don't need a course to know what words are off limits). I'm saying if people didn't get so offended about the bullshit then it wouldn't happen as often.

I know you don't think that a working class white guy can understand what others deal with but I'll give you an example of something that, while not on the same level, is similar:

In school, I was the nerdy smart kid with glasses. I was teased and picked on on a regular basis. There were days that I didn't want to go to school because I was "different" than the "cool" kids. Did my parents go to the school and complain? No. My dad told me (paraphrased) the following: "You think it's tough to get picked on at school, see how tough it is to get a job and raise a family when you don't graduate from high school because you're too afraid to go and get teased. Grow up!" So I went to school, and got teased, and learned to realize that it was meaningless because the people doing it had no impact on the outcome of my life. Then, after not letting it bother me, it wasn't fun for them anymore and they stopped.

That's how you deal with it. If my dad would have called the school and the kids doing it would have been singled out, it would have made it worse for me. But by being told to "man up and get over it" I learned to deal with it on my own. And I'm doing just fine now, living a happy successful life.

That's what I mean by not letting their pussy get enflamed.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 09:02 PM
She's a nut job, for sure. Equating religion with moral compass is probably one of the biggest turn-offs for non-believers.

Indeed.


I will say, though, that it's no different than making people attend mandatory LGBT, and other "tolerance/education", classes.

As was mentioned, it really depends on the source of requirement.

I believe many many Catholic, Christian and other Religious-based Universities do, in fact, require their students to attend Church. Liberals do not have a problem with that. Conservatives do not have a problem with that.

If a non-religious University wants to have their students attend a course on treatment of LGBT students, liberals do not have a problem with that. Apparently, the conservatives on this site do.


The government, however, mandating people to attend Church is entirely different. Liberals would have a problem with that. Apparently some conservatives would not.

Those same conservatives would be all "govt. overreach, Marxism! End of America!" had a liberal politician suggested mandatory GLBT sensitivity training. I do fear that many liberals would support that, but I'm not one of them.

In the end...the best way to find out if you're sticking with your principles is to see how you'd feel if the "other side" used them. i.e. if you want to prohibit a private college from teaching GLBT sensitivity, but a religious college from teaching not GLBT lifestyles are sinful...then you're too focused on content and not the underlying principle of what we as private citizens or private institutions should be able to do without interference from the govt.

Bos Mutus
04-02-2015, 10:35 PM
To get back to the OP.

It doesn't sound to me like the Senator was seriously suggesting a mandatory Church attendence bill, she was engaging in a little hyperbole.

They were debating Concealed Carry Permits...and she just kind of went off that a lot of people feel the need to carry weapons because of all the assholes we live with. If we didn't have so many assholes, we wouldn't need to carry guns...send everyone to Church and we won't have so many assholes.

She then goes on to say that this isn't really a practical suggestion, as she points out, we're not allowed to do that.

Non-issue, manufactured outrage.

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2015, 02:39 AM
To get back to the OP.

It doesn't sound to me like the Senator was seriously suggesting a mandatory Church attendence bill, she was engaging in a little hyperbole.

They were debating Concealed Carry Permits...and she just kind of went off that a lot of people feel the need to carry weapons because of all the assholes we live with. If we didn't have so many assholes, we wouldn't need to carry guns...send everyone to Church and we won't have so many assholes.

She then goes on to say that this isn't really a practical suggestion, as she points out, we're not allowed to do that.

Non-issue, manufactured outrage.

Have you got a source for her purposeful use of hyperbole? I ask because the remarks I read seem to indicate she was serious.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 03:46 AM
Have you got a source for her purposeful use of hyperbole?

source? No her remarks are posted in the OP.



I ask because the remarks I read seem to indicate she was serious.

Not the indication I got. it was during a hearing about concealed carry...seems she was advancing her position on that issue and made this as sort of an side remark remark(since we can't make everyone moral, we at least need to let moral people defend themselves)...no indication she ever actually proposed this legislation or has any intent on doing so. She even stated we can't do that

TJMAC77SP
04-03-2015, 10:05 AM
You are right (should have followed the first part of my signature block). I think she was serious about the need for a 'moral rebirth' but not about making church attendance mandatory.

Bos Mutus
04-03-2015, 02:48 PM
You are right (should have followed the first part of my signature block). I think she was serious about the need for a 'moral rebirth' but not about making church attendance mandatory.

Well, sure...can't say I've ever met a Christian, or any person, that didn't think we needed some of that.