Imagine rolling up to your kids elementary class and being greeted by this

  • Thread starter Thread starter gam197
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
redbetta said:
Man, I hate the phase “no human is illegal.” It betrays the fact that they truly do not understand the other side of the illegal immigration debate if they seriously think anyone believes a human being can be illegal.
Click to expand...
The phrase “no human is illegal” is meant to differentiate between a person being in an illegal state (such as being present in a country without proper documentation) and being an illegal person. In the first case, the illegal state can be corrected, either by changing the law, or by deporting the person. In the second case, the descriptor of “illegal” is seen as an inherent characteristic of the person, and would seemingly stick no matter what else happens.
 
You’re right

Have you seen the flat earth thread that just came out?
 
Last edited:
Where on this forum is the flat earth thread? That’s something I would like to see.
 
vz71 said:
40.png
ATraveller:
For them, science is just a political stick.
Click to expand...
2 points awarded for truth here.

What ever happened to the science that proves the unborn is both human and alive from the moment of conception?
Click to expand...
The use of science to “prove” this moral point is dubious. The scientific use of the terms “alive” and “human” are different from the moral use of these same terms. There is no moral advancement in the understanding of abortion that came from modern DNA analysis. The moral status of abortion has been known for a long time, and it did not rely on DNA analysis. If one is to claim that science “proves” the moral code was correct all along, then one must be hypothetically open to the possibility of science “disproving” the moral code. I suspect that no moralist would ever agree to that (and rightly so.) But the nature of the scientific method is that all theories are open to challenges and must be falsifiable to be actual scientific theories. A theory that cannot be falsified by any conceivable experiment is not a scientific theory. It is very dangerous to rest one’s moral arguments on grounds that might be taken away. Consider, for example, if the early Church had established a doctrine that Man is the pinnacle of God’s creation because we know that based on the fact that the home of Man, this place called earth, is the center of the universe around which everything else revolves. What would they have done when science later showed that the special place of earth in the dynamics of the universe was a mistake. The faith of the Church would have been shaken. But the Church wisely did not do that. Let’s not make that kind of mistake here by resting our moral arguments on falsifiable scientific theories. This is not to say that the theories of DNA are false. Just that conceptually they exist in a much less absolute plane than moral truths, which are absolute.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Having a law means nothing if that law is not enforced.
Click to expand...
You know, maybe instead of making these things illegal, we should be working on changing hearts. As noted, even if illegal, people will try to get around it. I mean, what good are laws if the people don’t have their hearts in it.
 
vz71 said:
The American Cancer society has not caused violence and criminal activity.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that is the reason Pence could not say “Black Lives Matter”? You confuse a byword with an American organization.
 
Suudy said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Having a law means nothing if that law is not enforced.
Click to expand...
You know, maybe instead of making these things illegal, we should be working on changing hearts. As noted, even if illegal, people will try to get around it. I mean, what good are laws if the people don’t have their hearts in it.
Click to expand...
Hearts have already been changed on those issue. There is wide-spread agreement that the rights in question are good and proper.

I know what you are alluding to here. You are alluding to my argument in the other thread about making abortion illegal. In that case there is not yet wide-spread agreement that it should be illegal. Now, if we were in Egypt or Saudi Arabia, then you would be right. The first thing to do would be to change hearts in the culture so that female mutilation was generally unsupported and frowned upon. But if they somehow forced through a law making female mutilation illegal, it could not be enforced because the law would not have popular support. But if hearts are changed first, then and only then could you pass a law that expressed that common belief that female mutilation was wrong. See the difference?
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
You can find plenty of those doubts on any forum, including this one.
Click to expand...
Really? :roll_eyes: Show me who hear has said such. And I don’t mean questioning interpretations of data or validity of experiments, but science as an art itself.

Because when I hear “Science is real,” it sounds like a challenge to the faithful. It’s a statement about how science is the only true method of gaining knowledge.
 
Sarcelle said:
You’re right

Have you seen the flat earth thread that just came out?
Click to expand...
Regular_Atheist said:
Where on this forum is the flat earth thread? That’s something I would like to see.
Click to expand...
Which exact thread.? I’d also would like to look at it. If you are going to throw an accusation out that Catholics believe the earth is flat., please post the thread. There is this one by a known troll that has been closed.

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/they-wont-be-able-to-refute-this-at-all/624978
 
Last edited:
Yeah, they were referring to that thread. Disappointing that it’s a troll, I would like to see a real flat earther post on here.
 
I know a lot of people who strongly oppose illegal immigration and not one of them thinks a human being can actually be illegal. It’s a bizarre way to characterize a person. At best, people refer to illegal immigrants as illegals for short.
 
There have been some.

You just missed them.

Anyway hang around long enough and you’ll see more.
 
As a legal immigrant I oppose illegal immigration but I do not see people as illegal.

What is illegal is the status of their residency in a particular country.

I could go to a foreign country illegally and my status would be that of an illegal immigrant. Doesn’t make me as a person, illegal.
 
Pattylt said:
I agree it is a bit on the virtual signaling side but do you really object to any statement it actually makes? Other than kindness being spelled wrong?

I think it’s a bit of a silly sign but I really don’t have any objection to it otherwise. But, I’m not catholic so maybe I’m missing something?
Click to expand...
I imagine the concern is over the probability that this isn’t just a ‘sign’ sitting idle in a classroom (that a given child could either read or not read, and interpret according to their own family’s values and belief systems).

The concern is presumably over the implication that the kind of teacher who puts up a sign like that, is probably teaching the kids their own interpretation of what each bumper sticker slogan means. Especially given the sign says “we believe”, which in a classroom usually means “we actively talk about this to make sure we’re all on the same page.”

E.g. does anyone think the “Love is love” slogan doesn’t signify affirmation of romantic relationships outside the marriage of one man and one woman?

Basically without needing to go into each one, each bumper sticker slogan represents a huge pile of specific baggage usually carried around and thrown by those who use it. So seeing a whole list of them in your kid’s learning environment… yeah, that’d be dismaying.

Just because those words alone could be interpreted in an innocent, Catholic-compatible way… doesn’t mean in the current cultural and political climate it’s wise or prudent to imagine someone is teaching children how to interpret them in the most innocent, Catholic-compatible way. Too many people are out to teach children that “women’s rights” = “abortion rights”, and that anything but active affirmation of same-sex romantic interactions = a lack of love.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top