Honestly, given the guy's lack of grasp on decent syntax, it could've been either one; but given his thing was more misspelling words instead of shorthanding them, I take it to "our." I don't know why he would say it to mean "your" when he was talking in description of Christians, and addressing an array of atheists, who are not adversely affected by secular laws, so I can readily dismiss any ambiguity about what he meant, and it's a poor point to try to hold to.
Both things you stated were things that can affect people based on religious grounds, and that which are perceptively "suppressed" by those issues are distinctly talmudic, biblical, and quranic based. Homosexuality is a sin according to the OT. Orthodox Judaism, virtually all Christian denominations, and Islam in general view homosexuality as a sin. Ergo the idea of a secular institution teaching children that there is no evidence that homosexuality is bad and that it's just as perfectly fine as heterosexuality will obviously chafe at people for religious reasons. I can't see why you would otherwise object to it, unless you are just simply homophobic. I have to wonder why you would be so, if not on religious grounds. It's not like people having sex with others of their gender has caused you any harm. Or, maybe you simply wished to tell them about it yourself for the same purposes as what is being taught by the school. Again, I don't see what the big deal is here, either, as you can still tell them your views.
As for vaccination, that goes against what some religions teach as well. Off the top of my head is the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist (perhaps the most fucking hilariously ironic title for a church ever), which pretty much teaches that medicine is bad and that all you need is prayer and Jesus will heal you...which, of course, is bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit, respectively. The vaccine mentioned is, as far as I know, optional as opposed to mandatory, due to the fact it is not sufficiently effective enough for it to be a mandatory vaccine.
As usual, I'm totally bemused by what point you're trying to drive at, here. If it isn't religion, then what is it? I admit, it's possible I might've missed a post or two, but I'm fairly certain I've kept a read on them since my first post to this thread. See, the request was "name one freedom being taken away. One." You've stated you're not a Christian before, and I believe you, but the context of the request was that it was being addressed to someone who was saying their freedoms were being oppressed or taken away by secular legislation.
There is a clear linking between the original statement and the reply which requested an example, unmuddied by any form of continually-evolving translations or chronological dating to put it out of its intended context. I get the impression you are trying to impart the importance of taking things into context and accounting for words that are or are not present for sake of linguistic simplicity within a written format, to demonstrate the importance of not taking things the abrahamic religious texts literally, and it's certainly a clever way of establishing an axiom, and also indeed a very good point; the theistic texts of those religions should always be examined for the context of time and stanza.
But this is also a too-subtle way of going about it if this is your intention, and loses weight due to the fact that the language with which the statement and subsequent reply has not aged or evolved and the past tendencies of the one who made the original claim are shown to be responsible for the missing letters. Again, it's also a good point that one word can mean two or more and that these must be considered when understanding context...but in this case, the context is actually very, very clear.
Basically, if that is the underlying point you are trying to drive at, it's a pretty valid one, and is actually agreed upon by many critics of religion. But if it is your underlying point, and you wish to get it across, it might be a better idea to state it as such, since that topic isn't what people are in the process of discussing and ergo the likelihood of others to get it are greatly diminished and it only serves to frustrate others rather than helping them understand something, and the more that happens [and it happens a lot, man] the less likely people are going to be to understand that point.
Both things you stated were things that can affect people based on religious grounds, and that which are perceptively "suppressed" by those issues are distinctly talmudic, biblical, and quranic based. Homosexuality is a sin according to the OT. Orthodox Judaism, virtually all Christian denominations, and Islam in general view homosexuality as a sin. Ergo the idea of a secular institution teaching children that there is no evidence that homosexuality is bad and that it's just as perfectly fine as heterosexuality will obviously chafe at people for religious reasons. I can't see why you would otherwise object to it, unless you are just simply homophobic. I have to wonder why you would be so, if not on religious grounds. It's not like people having sex with others of their gender has caused you any harm. Or, maybe you simply wished to tell them about it yourself for the same purposes as what is being taught by the school. Again, I don't see what the big deal is here, either, as you can still tell them your views.
As for vaccination, that goes against what some religions teach as well. Off the top of my head is the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist (perhaps the most fucking hilariously ironic title for a church ever), which pretty much teaches that medicine is bad and that all you need is prayer and Jesus will heal you...which, of course, is bullshit, bullshit, and bullshit, respectively. The vaccine mentioned is, as far as I know, optional as opposed to mandatory, due to the fact it is not sufficiently effective enough for it to be a mandatory vaccine.
As usual, I'm totally bemused by what point you're trying to drive at, here. If it isn't religion, then what is it? I admit, it's possible I might've missed a post or two, but I'm fairly certain I've kept a read on them since my first post to this thread. See, the request was "name one freedom being taken away. One." You've stated you're not a Christian before, and I believe you, but the context of the request was that it was being addressed to someone who was saying their freedoms were being oppressed or taken away by secular legislation.
There is a clear linking between the original statement and the reply which requested an example, unmuddied by any form of continually-evolving translations or chronological dating to put it out of its intended context. I get the impression you are trying to impart the importance of taking things into context and accounting for words that are or are not present for sake of linguistic simplicity within a written format, to demonstrate the importance of not taking things the abrahamic religious texts literally, and it's certainly a clever way of establishing an axiom, and also indeed a very good point; the theistic texts of those religions should always be examined for the context of time and stanza.
But this is also a too-subtle way of going about it if this is your intention, and loses weight due to the fact that the language with which the statement and subsequent reply has not aged or evolved and the past tendencies of the one who made the original claim are shown to be responsible for the missing letters. Again, it's also a good point that one word can mean two or more and that these must be considered when understanding context...but in this case, the context is actually very, very clear.
Basically, if that is the underlying point you are trying to drive at, it's a pretty valid one, and is actually agreed upon by many critics of religion. But if it is your underlying point, and you wish to get it across, it might be a better idea to state it as such, since that topic isn't what people are in the process of discussing and ergo the likelihood of others to get it are greatly diminished and it only serves to frustrate others rather than helping them understand something, and the more that happens [and it happens a lot, man] the less likely people are going to be to understand that point.
