You're a bigot. You're fired.
Advertisement
by Union of Democratic Socialists » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:13 pm
by The Black Forrest » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:14 pm
by Untaroicht » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:14 pm
Anachronous Rex wrote:Untaroicht wrote:
That passage does not mention the jews specifically, it was badly misinterpreted.
When looking at the context of Matthew’s Gospel (specifically, chapters 26 and 27) it is quite obvious that the entire Jewish race was not totally responsible for having Jesus crucified. Matthew 26 and 27 informs the reader that one individual and three distinct groups were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. They are Judas Iscariot, the disciple who betrayed Jesus into the hands of the Jewish authorities (Matt. 26:14–16; 47–50); the Jewish leaders. This group was made up of Caiphas the High Priest, the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes. They united to form the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem which tried Jesus on the charge of blasphemy (Matt. 26:47, 57–67; 27:1–2, 5, 18, 25); the Romans, comprised of the Procurator Pontius Pilate who handed Jesus over to be crucified and the Roman soldiers who actually nailed Jesus to the cross (Matt. 27:11–37); the Jewish mob of Jerusalem. Though their role in Matthew 27 seems passive and subordinated under the control and influence of the chief priests and elders, their guilt in the death of Christ cannot be overlooked. They had the opportunity afforded them by Pilate to have Jesus released, but they chose instead a criminal named Barabbas
Ah? So the infallible Catholic Church was wrong for 1600 years?
Good to know.
by Farnhamia » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:14 pm
by Benuty » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:14 pm
by Lunalia » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:15 pm
by Imsogone » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:15 pm
by Greed and Death » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:16 pm
Wisconsin9 wrote:Best of luck to her in finding another job, and in the lawsuit if she decides to pursue one.
by Greed and Death » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:16 pm
Imsogone wrote:Union of Democratic Socialists wrote:
Then I would inform you that you are stupid. CATHOLIC SCHOOL! Also meaning it is private and the government can not enforce the rule of allowing a homosexual to teach.
If they are getting Federal or State funding for any reason, then they have to comply with Federal and State rule. As I understand it parochial schools do get such funding.
by Anachronous Rex » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:17 pm
by Greed and Death » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:17 pm
Lunalia wrote:I'm curious as to whether the school believes that only single people should teach children, and have fired any other, heterosexual teachers in the past for having their relationships publicized. Otherwise, the statements "we didn't fire her because she was a lesbian" and "we fired her because her relationship was publicized" do not compute.
by Untaroicht » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:18 pm
by Anachronous Rex » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:18 pm
by Benuty » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:19 pm
by Lyassa and Nairoa » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:19 pm
by Union of Democratic Socialists » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:20 pm
Imsogone wrote:Union of Democratic Socialists wrote:
Then I would inform you that you are stupid. CATHOLIC SCHOOL! Also meaning it is private and the government can not enforce the rule of allowing a homosexual to teach.
If they are getting Federal or State funding for any reason, then they have to comply with Federal and State rule. As I understand it parochial schools do get such funding.
by Anachronous Rex » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:20 pm
by Imsogone » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:20 pm
by Farnhamia » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:21 pm
by The Black Forrest » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:21 pm
greed and death wrote:Lunalia wrote:I'm curious as to whether the school believes that only single people should teach children, and have fired any other, heterosexual teachers in the past for having their relationships publicized. Otherwise, the statements "we didn't fire her because she was a lesbian" and "we fired her because her relationship was publicized" do not compute.
You bring up a good point, the church could fire her for premartial sex.
by Union of Democratic Socialists » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:22 pm
Benuty wrote:Union of Democratic Socialists wrote:
Then I would inform you that you are stupid. CATHOLIC SCHOOL! Also meaning it is private and the government can not enforce the rule of allowing a homosexual to teach.
What if I told you
"Bigotry is Bigotry no matter what clause of the law it hides under"
by Anachronous Rex » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:23 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Anachronous Rex wrote:Really, anytime someone gloats over another's misfortune, it is in poor taste.
That a Christian is doing it is delightful hypocrisy. Though, I suppose in keeping with some of the more sinister Church Fathers.
A Christian doing it in defense of Christianity. I've been thinking about this and in a way, this is a good thing. It points up, once again, how hidebound and inflexible religious institutions can be. The public needs to be shown that from time to time, lest they forget.
by Lunalia » Wed Apr 24, 2013 5:24 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cerespasia, Cyptopir, Hypron, Keltionialang, New Temecula, Phoeniae, Shrillland, The Lone Alliance, Tungstan
Advertisement