School Expels Girl For Having Gay Parents.

[Laserwave]

Sorry to say it, but I`m of the opinion that if it`s a Christian church school, the they were right to do it.

Why? I hear you ask.

Well, I`ll tell you. I don`t like the decision, not at all. Everyone should be free to practice whatever lifestyle they want, as long as it doesn`t harm anyone in the process. (I`m a pagan: "Do what you will, harm none" is my credo.)

Thing is, in the Bible, what the Christians hold dear, it says that homosexuality is wrong. So, they would be complete hypocrites if they decided that it`s actually ok, and that rules can be ignored, or warped to be politically correct. So in doing what they`ve done, they`re actually showing more backbone than most churches and schools of their kind.

What this DOES show, however, is that church has no place in school any longer, and that this sort of thing should be used as an argument against them.

[Professor Smooth]

You make an excellent point.

Perhaps religion has no place in any school. I can actually see that as a defensable argument.

[Best First]

Sorry to say it, but I`m of the opinion that if it`s a Christian church school, the they were right to do it.

Why? I hear you ask.

Well, I`ll tell you. I don`t like the decision, not at all. Everyone should be free to practice whatever lifestyle they want, as long as it doesn`t harm anyone in the process. (I`m a pagan: "Do what you will, harm none" is my credo.)

Thing is, in the Bible, what the Christians hold dear, it says that homosexuality is wrong. So, they would be complete hypocrites if they decided that it`s actually ok, and that rules can be ignored, or warped to be politically correct. So in doing what they`ve done, they`re actually showing more backbone than most churches and schools of their kind.

What this DOES show, however, is that church has no place in school any longer, and that this sort of thing should be used as an argument against them.

i kind of agree and disagree.

I agree that it shows that religion has no place in what shuld be the secular realm of eduaction.

However i disagree that Christain schools should have the reight to act on prejudical aspects of their beliefs, just because they are Christian. People should be affaorded a basic level of protection for irrational guff.

[Laserwave]

However i disagree that Christain schools should have the reight to act on prejudical aspects of their beliefs, just because they are Christian. People should be affaorded a basic level of protection for irrational guff.

Thing is, they would be if that school was state-funded, but because it`s a church school, that probably isn`t the case, and so the school board can decide who gets in and who doesn`t. Because she will be seen as not coming up to their standards, then they can refuse her admission.

That being said, after consulting a friend of mine who`s a Christian, they say that they shouldn`t be punishing the kid for the "Sins of the Mother", something I wasn`t aware of. But there you. This is why I believe organised religion sucks.

[Best First]

However i disagree that Christain schools should have the reight to act on prejudical aspects of their beliefs, just because they are Christian. People should be affaorded a basic level of protection for irrational guff.

Thing is, they would be if that school was state-funded, but because it`s a church school, that probably isn`t the case, and so the school board can decide who gets in and who doesn`t. Because she will be seen as not coming up to their standards, then they can refuse her admission.

but by that ogic why not have BNP schools or KKK schools? I don't see any logical difference

This is why I believe organised religion sucks.

yo.

[Kaylee]

However i disagree that Christain schools should have the reight to act on prejudical aspects of their beliefs, just because they are Christian. People should be affaorded a basic level of protection for irrational guff.

Thing is, they would be if that school was state-funded, but because it`s a church school, that probably isn`t the case, and so the school board can decide who gets in and who doesn`t. Because she will be seen as not coming up to their standards, then they can refuse her admission.

but by that ogic why not have BNP schools or KKK schools? I don't see any logical difference

This is why I believe organised religion sucks.

yo.

Sadly they can have KKK schools through abuse of homeschooling. I can understand why people might believe that their local school system is inappropriate for their child (particularly if you have a bright kid and a crap school) but people use that to keep their kids out of school and train them up in their own fundamentalist/racist/anti-semitic whatever beliefs.

I'm not sure what can be done about that short of making it legal for children to attend a state school only.

I've never quite understood how these people claim that they are preparing their kids for the 'real world' by isolating them in a false environment. Sort of like locking astronauts into a barrel full of yoghurt to prepare them for the 'reality' of space flight.

[sprunkner]

However i disagree that Christain schools should have the reight to act on prejudical aspects of their beliefs, just because they are Christian. People should be affaorded a basic level of protection for irrational guff.

Thing is, they would be if that school was state-funded, but because it`s a church school, that probably isn`t the case, and so the school board can decide who gets in and who doesn`t. Because she will be seen as not coming up to their standards, then they can refuse her admission.

That being said, after consulting a friend of mine who`s a Christian, they say that they shouldn`t be punishing the kid for the "Sins of the Mother", something I wasn`t aware of. But there you. This is why I believe organised religion sucks.

Religious schools are a weird situation. Since my sister and many of my friends attend BYU, I will weigh in and probably kill the post, like I always do.

Benefits of religious schooling: people get to actually learn their own doctrine. This is to a believer's advantage as they often don't know where certain ideas originated: for example, your preacher may tell you that "this is right because the Bible says so," when in actuality he's thinking of John Calvin or Martin Luther's interpretation of the Bible. People attribute a lot of things to "God said it" without realizing the context of who was actually saying God said it. Martin Luther and John Calvin may have good opinions, but they're still opinions. Figure things out for yourself.
Benefit number two: Often, religious schools can foster a sort of microliberalism, in that different ideas within the context of born-again Christianity/Mormonism/Catholicism are discussed more heavily and more academically than they would be in a standard congregation. For example, a number of BYU professors have pointed out that while a person may oppose homosexuality personally, do they really have a right to deny civil liberties to homosexuals? After all, I can oppose the drinking of alcohol and the worship of Allah personally, but I have a responsibility to live with drinkers and Muslims, and to accord them the same rights I have. So, with a number of intelligent religious people together (I know, I know, intelligent religious people don't exist, blah blah blah) ideas can be discussed and new contexts discovered for old revelations.

Disadvantages of religious schools: They're weird little bubbles. You can discuss homosexuality all you like, but if you don't know any homosexuals you don't have any context to put it in. The microliberalism mentioned earlier doesn't neccesarily need to be within the context of a school. Any religious group can, and should discuss things openmindedly and calmly in any setting.
Also, how could you be both an example and a diverse person when everyone around you is the same religion? How can you be sure that you are studying anything impartially when your school admits to having a bias? What is more, students can sometimes take their professor's words as the words of God, which is just as stupid as taking John Calvin or your preacher's words as the words of God. Professors and teachers, despite their knowledge, aren't always right, and shouldn't be given the right to speak for certain ideas in a religion. The first benefit above can be completely circumvented if people come to the school wanting to be told how to think.

So I don't go to BYU anymore. Or any religious school. I like the people around me to be unlike me. But I guess those are some reasons for religious schooling. I think the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I dont see any befits that cant be taught be a religous education lesson (RE) in what would I deem to be a normall school.

school is for learning. they can 'teach' me about religon so that I am not naive to it.
Attending a religous school is different. my opinions are being formed from an angle that to me seems dangerous at least.

If I was at this girls school, and I spent 5 years being told homosexuality was wrong. im probably going to leave school thinking it... not surprisng. and thats frankly ****.
there are many aspects that I feel if your 'preached' to will leave the wrong ideas in your head.

[Computron]

Thing is, in the Bible, what the Christians hold dear, it says that homosexuality is wrong. So, they would be complete hypocrites if they decided that it`s actually ok, and that rules can be ignored, or warped to be politically correct. So in doing what they`ve done, they`re actually showing more backbone than most churches and schools of their kind.

Parse your words a bit more carefully. For certain fundamentalist Christians, the above quoted section is most assuredly the case; however, for Christians such as myself, that is not the case at all. As a Catholic I have better things to do than worry about what is going on in your bedroom. Rather I'm more focused that you have enough food to eat in the kitchen, to paraphrase Al Sharpton.

A shame the Vatican is schizophrenic on the issue. They'll go so far as to say being gay isn't a sin, but committing homosexual acts is. That's akin to saying that being human isn't a sin, but if you do anything a human does, it's the fiery pits for ya!

Who we are is defined by what we do. It's illogical to divorce the two as the Vatican has done.

In any case I'd still follow the Vatican rather than kowtow to some of the other Christian leaders out there such as Pat Robertson.

[Best First]

Who we are is defined by what we do. It's illogical to divorce the two as the Vatican has done.

As an institution based on irrational beliefs is suspect they don't really care.

[Professor Smooth]

I don't understand people who consider themselves Christians but then say they don't follow the parts of the bible that advocate discrimination against certain people. Don't get me wrong, it's the correct choice to make, but those parts are actually in the book. If you disregard chunks of it, how can you still be part of the religion?

[sprunkner]

Religion's a pretty personal thing. No one made me swear unfailing loyalty to the Mormons and promise to kill for them.

So if a Christian disagrees with certain tenets of the religion, or parts of the Bible, then it's their prerogative to follow personal beliefs, not a dogmatic structure.

Just like different people have different definitions of various systems... atheism, liberalism, history major-ism, etc, according to person, there isn't really a rulebook telling Christians how to believe. People say it's the Bible, but in truth it's the person's interpretation and inspiration.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

yeah and as a christian homosexuality is frowned upon.

which is really dumb.

A. you should not be allowed to teach anyone that. because its so wrong for various reasons.
B. if you do belive in christianity then perhaps you should check your belifes.

of course this shouldnt be taught in schools - but then its parents who send them to these schools in the first place who need thier heads checked.
Indoctrination.

[Professor Smooth]

Religion's a pretty personal thing. No one made me swear unfailing loyalty to the Mormons and promise to kill for them.

So if a Christian disagrees with certain tenets of the religion, or parts of the Bible, then it's their prerogative to follow personal beliefs, not a dogmatic structure.

Just like different people have different definitions of various systems... atheism, liberalism, history major-ism, etc, according to person, there isn't really a rulebook telling Christians how to believe. People say it's the Bible, but in truth it's the person's interpretation and inspiration.

How is religion a personal thing? It comes with an instruction manual. Each religion has it's own holy text. It tells you that, if you want to be part of this faith then you must obey these guidelines. If you don't obey the guidelines, how are you still following the religion.

It's like when Homer tried to build a swimming pool but didn't follow the instructions correctly and he wound up building a barn instead.

As the Amish gentleman said to Homer upon it's completion: Sure, 'tis a fine barn but's no pool, English.

If you don't follow the all the guidelines of Christianity, then you're not a Christian. Sure, you're a fine person, but you're no Christian.

[Computron]

I don't understand people who consider themselves Christians but then say they don't follow the parts of the bible that advocate discrimination against certain people. Don't get me wrong, it's the correct choice to make, but those parts are actually in the book. If you disregard chunks of it, how can you still be part of the religion?

In your reasoning you assume that the text of a given religion is directly equivalent to the original goals or intent of the religion in question.

Remember that the Bible has been interpreted and rewritten numerous times, and as such is the reason we have so many different denominations of Christianity. To be a Christian in the general sense is to accept the divinity of Christ and his redemption of humanity.

What follows is a tremendous amount of debate into what else makes up a Christian. Thus hardcore Catholics (Usually South American or Central American) will uphold a rigid hierarchy with the Vatican being the end all be all of dogma.

American Catholics will tend to demphasize the power of the Vatican in favor of other aspects. For instance I take the Jesuit stance that service to others is one of the key elements to being a Christian. The rest is mere details.

Other Christians in the general sense focus on the literal reading of the Bible, regardless of editorial input over the past 2000 years. For them one of the key elements is taking things at face value in the Bible and accepting it as implicitly true.

In other words it's not that in disregarding certain elements that we somehow make ourselves not Christians. Rather, from my perspective it is a matter of removing that which isn't true to Christianity from the religion, i.e., discrimination.

Do I "know" that I'm right about what is core and central to Christianity? No, of course not. Do I have a general idea that I may be on to something? I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

[Metal Vendetta]

I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

Uh...






...





...to meet girls?

[sprunkner]

I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

Uh...






...





...to meet girls?

and...






....







uh....






not have sex with them until marriage?

[Computron]

I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

Uh...






...





...to meet girls?

Well done Mr. Bond in putting the puzzle pieces together. Unfortunately you're too late to stop me.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

Indoctrination?

Is homosexuality wrong?

[Kup_1]

*reads the first post*

Holy [composite word including 'f*ck']!

pun intended.......

[Computron]

I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

Indoctrination?

Perhaps for a youngster, yes, but as someone who reasonably believes that I've rationally examined my faith and come to this belief, indoctrination doesn't apply.

[Impactor returns 2.0]

I would think so, otherwise why would I be doing it?

Indoctrination?

Perhaps for a youngster, yes, but as someone who reasonably believes that I've rationally examined my faith and come to this belief, indoctrination doesn't apply.

so you have come to the belife that homosexuality is wrong?

im just wondering because thats part of the package, and i didnt think u couldpick and choose what bits u did and didnt like?

Otherwise u can make up your belife system.
this is mine.

dont be a cu** - works out pretty good.

[Best First]

where does your criteria for being a c*** come from though? indoctrination?

i think i have boiled my issues with religion down to the areas where it introduces irrational discourse into the public arena. I would include this topic in that.

other than that people can believe whatever whacked out mad fairy tale s*** they like as far as i am concerned, just stop ****ing with other people's live becasue you think your imaganary friend (who, given all availble evidence also appears to be a bit of a thoughtless f***wit at best) is backing you up. Faith should be private, keep your irrationality to yourself and lets move forwward as a race.

Not sure how you 'rationally examine' faith though? Think you are kidding yourself there Comps. Sorry. Also its a bit of a painful coincidence that the faith people tend to claim they have embraced on their own terms is the one their mummy and daddy taught them. But anyway, if ya don't **** with people, i don't think i have the right to care, although i find it hard to avoid slight bemusement.

[Metal Vendetta]

Seems to me everyone makes up their own belief system and everyone who believes has their own idea of what God is anyway. I've lost count of the number of people who've said to me things like "I'm a Christian, but I'm not a traditional Christian" or "My faith shares some tenets with Christianity but it's my own faith" or "I'm a Pagan Christian" or whatever.

It mostly confirms my suspicions that it's all made up, tbh. Like with "rational" Christians arguing one thing and "fundamentalist" Christians arguing the opposite, God must be a very confused deity.

...

Oh and one last thing, which has been bugging me for a couple of weeks now. Off-topic, and I'm not really expecting an answer, but nonetheless...

If Jesus was the Light of the World and the Son of Man and he had such an important message for God's people, WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE IT DOWN SOMEWHERE, CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY? If it was really that important you would have thought he'd have at least produced a memo with the salient points underlined, or a couple of paragraphs explaining it all clearly and distinctly, instead of leaving it to a bunch of fishermen and whores to try and remember exactly what it was that he said and then for another bunch of guys to piece it together a few centuries later (leaving out anything they didn't like). If that was really the plan then it seems ludicrusly inefficient and, well, a bit stupid.

[Kaylee]

Oh and one last thing, which has been bugging me for a couple of weeks now. Off-topic, and I'm not really expecting an answer, but nonetheless...

If Jesus was the Light of the World and the Son of Man and he had such an important message for God's people, WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE IT DOWN SOMEWHERE, CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY? If it was really that important you would have thought he'd have at least produced a memo with the salient points underlined, or a couple of paragraphs explaining it all clearly and distinctly, instead of leaving it to a bunch of fishermen and whores to try and remember exactly what it was that he said and then for another bunch of guys to piece it together a few centuries later (leaving out anything they didn't like). If that was really the plan then it seems ludicrusly inefficient and, well, a bit stupid.

Sadly Jesus had misjudged his timejump and had, in fact, appeared a couple of millennia too early to have the use of a biro. No harm done tho... ?

[Metal Vendetta]

Sadly Jesus had misjudged his timejump and had, in fact, appeared a couple of millennia too early to have the use of a biro. No harm done tho... ?

...But of Death's Head...


...there was no trace!

[Kaylee]

Sadly Jesus had misjudged his timejump and had, in fact, appeared a couple of millennia too early to have the use of a biro. No harm done tho... ?

...But of Death's Head...


...there was no trace!

Or was there? Perhaps the Christians have been misguided about their actual saviour

[Best First]

If Jesus was the Light of the World and the Son of Man and he had such an important message for God's people, WHY DIDN'T HE WRITE IT DOWN SOMEWHERE, CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY? If it was really that important you would have thought he'd have at least produced a memo with the salient points underlined, or a couple of paragraphs explaining it all clearly and distinctly, instead of leaving it to a bunch of fishermen and whores to try and remember exactly what it was that he said and then for another bunch of guys to piece it together a few centuries later (leaving out anything they didn't like). If that was really the plan then it seems ludicrusly inefficient and, well, a bit stupid.

There si a great Le and Herring sktch abot this, from teh Sunday Heroes section of TMWRNJ, where its pointed out that maybe he could have been a bit clearer about the whole 'eat of my body' thing.

Then again, its not like he was omnipotent eh?

What?

oh.

Still, i'm sure despite him being all powerful its somehow humaitys fault and not god, who is real honest,'s fault, as usual. Got to give credit to the creative 'reasoning' used to defend religion...

[Metal Vendetta]

Still, i'm sure despite him being all powerful its somehow humaitys fault and not god, who is real honest,'s fault, as usual. Got to give credit to the creative 'reasoning' used to defend religion...

It takes more doublethink to work it out than I can be bothered to muster. Still, all praise Death's Head!

[Best First]

Thouh shalt not kill...for free, yes?