Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on April 13, 2009, 10:30:10 AM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5136050/US-religious-Right-concedes-defeat.html
US religious Right concedes defeat
America's religious Right has conceded that the election of US President Barack Obama has sealed its defeat in the cultural war with permissiveness and secularism.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle.
James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family - one of the largest Christian groups in the country - and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,” he said.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Despite changing the political agenda for a generation, and helping push the Republicans to the Right, evangelicals have won only minor victories in limiting the availability of abortion. Meanwhile the number of states permitting civil partnerships between homosexuals is rising, and the campaign to restore prayer to schools after 40 years - a decision that helped create the Moral Majority - has got nowhere.
Though the struggle will go on, the confession of Mr Dobson, who started his ministry from scratch in 1977, came amid growing concern that church attendance in the United States is heading the way of Britain, where no more than ten per cent worship every week.
Unease is rising that a nation founded - in the view of evangelicals - purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”.
Recent surveys have suggested that the American religious landscape has shifted significantly. A study by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 11 per cent fewer Americans identify themselves as Christian than 20 years ago. Those stating no religious affiliation or declaring themselves agnostic has risen from 8.2 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 2008.
Despite a common distaste among evangelicals for the new Democratic president, who is regarded as at best a die-hard, pro-abortion liberal and at worst a Marxist, a serious rift is emerging among social conservatives in the wake of his election victory.
A growing legion of disenchanted grassroots believers does not blame liberal opponents for the decline in faith or the failures of the religious Right. Rather, they hold responsible Republicans - particularly Mr Bush - and groups like Focus on the Family that have worked with the party, for courting Christian voters only to betray promises of pursuing the conservative agenda once in office.
“Conservatives became so obsessed with the political process we have forgotten the gospel,” said Steve Deace, an evangelical radio talk show host in Iowa who broadcast a recording of Mr Dobson’s address, which he said had appeared on Focus on the Family’s website before disappearing.
Mr Deace added: “All that time spent trying to sit at the top table is not time well spent. Republicans say one thing and do another.”
In the southern Bible belt, many like the Rev Joe Morecraft, head of a small Presbyterian church near Atlanta, judge that the Christian movement failed not because its views were unpalatable for moderates and liberals, but because “it was not Christian enough”.
A deserter from the Republican Party, he said Christians had been corrupted by politics and needed to return to the basics of local social work and preaching the gospel, rather than devoting their “energies to getting a few people elected”.
He is not alone in questioning how evangelical leaders such as Mr Dobson could spend a career campaigning against abortion and then eventually support a candidate like Senator John McCain, who has dubious “pro-life” credentials.
Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, a South Carolina-based group which organises home-schooling for Christian children, said: “Political involvement by Christians is not wrong, but that’s all the big groups did for 25 years. They were more concerned with fund-raising and political power than they were with our children’s welfare.”
“It’s a failed movement,” he said. “We will end up like England, where the church has utterly lost its way.”
Michael Spencer, a writer who lives in a Christian community in Kentucky, said the religious Right had suffered from its identification with Mr Bush, the most unpopular president in living memory, and the extremist rhetoric of some on the religious Right.
One of the more notorious outbursts was the Rev John Hagee’s assertion that the deadly Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was God’s judgment on New Orleans for hosting a gay parade.
In an online article in the Christian Science Monitor that has became a touchstone for disaffected conservatives, Mr Spencer forecast a major collapse in evangelical Christianity within ten years.
“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake,” he wrote.
-
Fantastic news. Progress can be made. Let's hope this is not some unresolvable dialectic struggle where the pendulum swings forever.
-
Fantastic news. Progress can be made. Let's hope this is not some unresolvable dialectic struggle where the pendulum swings forever.
This is not bad news. The "religious right" has ridiculous demands on politicians.
-
I'm sure some holy warrin' governor can rescue them.
-
As I have stated, being religious is dying out among mainstream America.
-
As I have stated, being religious is dying out among mainstream America.
Contrary to what you may think, I am against religion influencing politics by and large.
Whether it be democrats who pimp pimp the black churches or the right pimping those mega churches out west, its wrong and stupid.
-
As I have stated, being religious is dying out among mainstream America.
Never happen in a million years.....no matter how much u hope so. They might not be so politically active, but not going anywhere.
-
Never happen in a million years.....no matter how much u hope so. They might not be so politically active, but not going anywhere.
I dont like the "right wing" chruches demanding more social welfare programs and govt funded programs to push an agenda either.
We need to cut back spending, not increase it for do-gooders of any political stripe.
-
I doubt anyone on either side is going to "stand down" on the issues. I tend to subscribe more to things going in a "pendulum" that was mentioned a few posts earlier. These things tend to be cyclical.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5136050/US-religious-Right-concedes-defeat.html
US religious Right concedes defeat
America's religious Right has conceded that the election of US President Barack Obama has sealed its defeat in the cultural war with permissiveness and secularism.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle.
James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family - one of the largest Christian groups in the country - and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,” he said.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Despite changing the political agenda for a generation, and helping push the Republicans to the Right, evangelicals have won only minor victories in limiting the availability of abortion. Meanwhile the number of states permitting civil partnerships between homosexuals is rising, and the campaign to restore prayer to schools after 40 years - a decision that helped create the Moral Majority - has got nowhere.
Though the struggle will go on, the confession of Mr Dobson, who started his ministry from scratch in 1977, came amid growing concern that church attendance in the United States is heading the way of Britain, where no more than ten per cent worship every week.
Unease is rising that a nation founded - in the view of evangelicals - purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”.
Recent surveys have suggested that the American religious landscape has shifted significantly. A study by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 11 per cent fewer Americans identify themselves as Christian than 20 years ago. Those stating no religious affiliation or declaring themselves agnostic has risen from 8.2 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 2008.
Despite a common distaste among evangelicals for the new Democratic president, who is regarded as at best a die-hard, pro-abortion liberal and at worst a Marxist, a serious rift is emerging among social conservatives in the wake of his election victory.
A growing legion of disenchanted grassroots believers does not blame liberal opponents for the decline in faith or the failures of the religious Right. Rather, they hold responsible Republicans - particularly Mr Bush - and groups like Focus on the Family that have worked with the party, for courting Christian voters only to betray promises of pursuing the conservative agenda once in office.
“Conservatives became so obsessed with the political process we have forgotten the gospel,” said Steve Deace, an evangelical radio talk show host in Iowa who broadcast a recording of Mr Dobson’s address, which he said had appeared on Focus on the Family’s website before disappearing.
Mr Deace added: “All that time spent trying to sit at the top table is not time well spent. Republicans say one thing and do another.”
In the southern Bible belt, many like the Rev Joe Morecraft, head of a small Presbyterian church near Atlanta, judge that the Christian movement failed not because its views were unpalatable for moderates and liberals, but because “it was not Christian enough”.
A deserter from the Republican Party, he said Christians had been corrupted by politics and needed to return to the basics of local social work and preaching the gospel, rather than devoting their “energies to getting a few people elected”.
He is not alone in questioning how evangelical leaders such as Mr Dobson could spend a career campaigning against abortion and then eventually support a candidate like Senator John McCain, who has dubious “pro-life” credentials.
Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, a South Carolina-based group which organises home-schooling for Christian children, said: “Political involvement by Christians is not wrong, but that’s all the big groups did for 25 years. They were more concerned with fund-raising and political power than they were with our children’s welfare.”
“It’s a failed movement,” he said. “We will end up like England, where the church has utterly lost its way.”
Michael Spencer, a writer who lives in a Christian community in Kentucky, said the religious Right had suffered from its identification with Mr Bush, the most unpopular president in living memory, and the extremist rhetoric of some on the religious Right.
One of the more notorious outbursts was the Rev John Hagee’s assertion that the deadly Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was God’s judgment on New Orleans for hosting a gay parade.
In an online article in the Christian Science Monitor that has became a touchstone for disaffected conservatives, Mr Spencer forecast a major collapse in evangelical Christianity within ten years.
“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake,” he wrote.
Get over it already.
-
Get over it already.
Get over What?
This is mostly about Dobson stepping down and his own admission of his own perceived failures to influence politics in the US
-
Get over What?
This is mostly about Dobson stepping down and his own admission of his own perceived failures to influence politics in the US
Not you sir. :)
Them. ;D
-
Not you sir. :)
Them. ;D
oh - sorry about that.
-
Never happen in a million years.....no matter how much u hope so. They might not be so politically active, but not going anywhere.
You may wish so, but the fact of the matter is that people nowdays are more into being spiritual than religious. And if you can't understand the difference between those, then there isn't any help for you.
-
Let me save Beach Bum some time...
::)
-
Our President
-
I doubt anyone on either side is going to "stand down" on the issues. I tend to subscribe more to things going in a "pendulum" that was mentioned a few posts earlier. These things tend to be cyclical.
i agree
"things" tend to oscillate around a mean
you can see that pattern happening over and over again
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5136050/US-religious-Right-concedes-defeat.html
US religious Right concedes defeat
America's religious Right has conceded that the election of US President Barack Obama has sealed its defeat in the cultural war with permissiveness and secularism.
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Leading evangelicals have admitted that their association with George W. Bush has not only hurt the cause of social conservatives but contributed to the failure of the key objectives of their 30-year struggle.
James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family - one of the largest Christian groups in the country - and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action,” he said.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
Despite changing the political agenda for a generation, and helping push the Republicans to the Right, evangelicals have won only minor victories in limiting the availability of abortion. Meanwhile the number of states permitting civil partnerships between homosexuals is rising, and the campaign to restore prayer to schools after 40 years - a decision that helped create the Moral Majority - has got nowhere.
Though the struggle will go on, the confession of Mr Dobson, who started his ministry from scratch in 1977, came amid growing concern that church attendance in the United States is heading the way of Britain, where no more than ten per cent worship every week.
Unease is rising that a nation founded - in the view of evangelicals - purely as a Christian country will soon, like northern Europe, become “post-Christian”.
Recent surveys have suggested that the American religious landscape has shifted significantly. A study by Trinity College in Connecticut found that 11 per cent fewer Americans identify themselves as Christian than 20 years ago. Those stating no religious affiliation or declaring themselves agnostic has risen from 8.2 per cent in 1990 to 15 per cent in 2008.
Despite a common distaste among evangelicals for the new Democratic president, who is regarded as at best a die-hard, pro-abortion liberal and at worst a Marxist, a serious rift is emerging among social conservatives in the wake of his election victory.
A growing legion of disenchanted grassroots believers does not blame liberal opponents for the decline in faith or the failures of the religious Right. Rather, they hold responsible Republicans - particularly Mr Bush - and groups like Focus on the Family that have worked with the party, for courting Christian voters only to betray promises of pursuing the conservative agenda once in office.
“Conservatives became so obsessed with the political process we have forgotten the gospel,” said Steve Deace, an evangelical radio talk show host in Iowa who broadcast a recording of Mr Dobson’s address, which he said had appeared on Focus on the Family’s website before disappearing.
Mr Deace added: “All that time spent trying to sit at the top table is not time well spent. Republicans say one thing and do another.”
In the southern Bible belt, many like the Rev Joe Morecraft, head of a small Presbyterian church near Atlanta, judge that the Christian movement failed not because its views were unpalatable for moderates and liberals, but because “it was not Christian enough”.
A deserter from the Republican Party, he said Christians had been corrupted by politics and needed to return to the basics of local social work and preaching the gospel, rather than devoting their “energies to getting a few people elected”.
He is not alone in questioning how evangelical leaders such as Mr Dobson could spend a career campaigning against abortion and then eventually support a candidate like Senator John McCain, who has dubious “pro-life” credentials.
Ray Moore, president of Exodus Mandate, a South Carolina-based group which organises home-schooling for Christian children, said: “Political involvement by Christians is not wrong, but that’s all the big groups did for 25 years. They were more concerned with fund-raising and political power than they were with our children’s welfare.”
“It’s a failed movement,” he said. “We will end up like England, where the church has utterly lost its way.”
Michael Spencer, a writer who lives in a Christian community in Kentucky, said the religious Right had suffered from its identification with Mr Bush, the most unpopular president in living memory, and the extremist rhetoric of some on the religious Right.
One of the more notorious outbursts was the Rev John Hagee’s assertion that the deadly Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was God’s judgment on New Orleans for hosting a gay parade.
In an online article in the Christian Science Monitor that has became a touchstone for disaffected conservatives, Mr Spencer forecast a major collapse in evangelical Christianity within ten years.
“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake,” he wrote.
Once again, we have a classic case of a far-left media outlet from the UK, running an article, without stating the FULL CONTEXT of the statement.
This paper apparently didn’t bother posting the REST of that last statement of Dr. Dobson, which was:
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles. but God is in control and we are not going to give up now. . Humanly speaking, we can say that we have lost all those battles, but God is in control and we are not going to give up now, right?
The world has turned colder for the family in recent years and there is such hostility to anyone who holds to a faith and we're going to take the heat. But I have been assured by the board and by many of you that we're not going to cow, we're not going to be discouraged. We're going to continue to express the love for the Scripture and the principles that we find there and if we are made fools for Christ, that's okay too because our purpose is to serve him and that he be pleased.[/b]
That don't sound like a concession speech to me. Perhaps these folks at Telegraph need to get some Q-Tips.
This article states that the number of states permitting gay “marriage” is rising. Of course, it conveniently forgets to mention that, in the past 5 years, the number of states with marriage amendments (clearly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman) HAS INCREASED OVER SEVEN FOLD (from 4 in 2004 to 30 in 2009), including three states, added just six months ago: Florida, Arizona, and especially California.
The states that have allowed gay “marriage” all have left-leaning governments and (more importantly) are in places where the people can’t directly amend their constitution, without cutting through political red tape.
Dobson and conservatives have hardly given up the fight, regarding the culture war. And, Obama's victory has hardly sealed anything. A rally by the GOP in 2010 can change the complexion of Washington drastically. Of did this UK paper also forget that the Dems were in this EXACT same political position just four years ago?
-
Once again, we have a classic case of a far-left media outlet from the UK, running an article, without stating the FULL CONTEXT of the statement.
This paper apparently didn’t bother posting the REST of that last statement of Dr. Dobson, which was:
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles. but God is in control and we are not going to give up now.
This article states that the number of states permitting gay “marriage” is rising. Of course, it conveniently forgets to mention that, in the past 5 years, the number of states with marriage amendments (clearly defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman) HAS INCREASED OVER SEVEN FOLD (from 4 in 2004 to 30 in 2009), including three states, added just six months ago: Florida, Arizona, and especially California.
The states that have allowed gay “marriage” all have left-leaning governments and (more importantly) are in places where the people can’t directly amend their constitution, without cutting through political red tape.
Dobson and conservatives have hardly given up the fight, regarding the culture war. And, Obama's victory has hardly sealed anything. A rally by the GOP in 2010 can change the complexion of Washington drastically. Of did this UK paper also forget that the Dems were in this EXACT same political position just four years ago?
So do you hate gay people?
-
So do you hate gay people?
Nope!!! But, that's not the point of this thread.
This newspaper foolishly and erroneously claimed that Dobson has thrown in the towel, when it comes to the cutural issues of America. He has done nothing of the sort.
Nor has Obama's win "sealed" any defeat for him or others like him (Back to the marriage thing, Florida flipped from "red" to "blue"; yet, its marriage amendment passed 62-38). Obama was elected for one primary reason: The economy.
The reasons the GOP lost power in 2006 (just two years after amassing a larger majority, and Bush's re-election) were because of mad reckless spending, failure to live up to campaign promises, and a truckload of political scandals.
If the Dems follow suit (and they're off to a rousing start, so far), they can find themselves right back in the minority, just as quickly.
To top it all off, the claim about restoring prayer in schools getting nowhere is patently FALSE. Kids are allowed to pray in schools, as long as such is voluntary and student-led. A recent ruling in a Texas court allows for a "moment of silence" before school starts. Guess what kids can do, during that time, PRAY!!!
-
You may wish so, but the fact of the matter is that people nowdays are more into being spiritual than religious. And if you can't understand the difference between those, then there isn't any help for you.
That is little more than a PC euphemism for folks who don’t want to be held accountable to any standards of Biblical morality. As long as a particular belief system doesn't step on their proverbial toes, they think it's cool.
Much of the foolishess touted by proponents of "permissiveness and secularism" don't have a blessed thing to do with being spiritual.
They don’t mind going to church, as long as the preacher don’t tell them that fornication, adultery, greed, lust, homosexuality, covetousness, or materialism is sinful.
-
That is little more than a PC euphemism for folks who don’t want to be held accountable to any standards of Biblical morality. As long as a particular belief system doesn't step on their proverbial toes, they think it's cool.
Much of the foolishess touted by proponents of "permissiveness and secularism" don't have a blessed thing to do with being spiritual.
They don’t mind going to church, as long as the preacher don’t tell them that fornication, adultery, greed, lust, homosexuality, covetousness, or materialism is sinful.
Clearly Dobson feels defeated and admits total failure (thus far) in the culture war that exists mostly inside his head.
He states that the religious right has lost all their "battles" and the war ain't looking too good either.
“We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”
-
Clearly Dobson feels defeated and admits total failure (thus far) in the culture war that exists mostly inside his head.
He states that the religious right has lost all their "battles" and the war ain't looking too good either.
It's about time he sees these things... Christianity in this country is not going anywhere, but the people are certainly tired of the minority (The Christian right) being the loudest barkers and telling everyone in the country what to do.
-
My beef with the "religious right" is that they will vote for a fiscal socialist and huge spender so long as he is good on "abortion" and not vote for a candidate who is great on everythnig else as far as libertarian issues goes.
Its really stupid.
-
My beef with the "religious right" is that they will vote for a fiscal socialist and huge spender so long as he is good on "abortion" and not vote for a candidate who is great on everythnig else as far as libertarian issues goes.
Its really stupid.
They don't care as long as they "get their God on".
-
They don't care as long as they "get their God on".
Whatever it is, its juvenile, moronic, and a detriment to overall public discourse.
Serious, abortion and gay marriage are but two issues, there are dozens of others that are more important and pressing to me.
-
Once again, we have a classic case of a far-left media outlet from the UK, running an article, without stating the FULL CONTEXT of the statement.
Your a fucking idiot...The Telegraph is widely known to be the mouthpiece of the Tory Party in Britain...pro church of england, pro military, pro small government, low taxes, pro israel, hardline on Northern Ireland...jeez the list goes on
far left media outlet...you make me laugh, shows how warped you christians really are...bunch of brainwashed fools
-
Clearly Dobson feels defeated and admits total failure (thus far) in the culture war that exists mostly inside his head.
He states that the religious right has lost all their "battles" and the war ain't looking too good either.
First, this culture war hardly exists merely in Dobson's head.
Second, you again fail to read the rest of Dobson’s statement. If that weren't enough, Dobson was on "Hannity" last night and his statements were anything but that of someone who "condeded" defeat. Dobson pointed what I mentioned yesterday, on the marriage issue, namely that 30 states have passed marriage amendments, clearly defining marriage as a 1M-1W union.
As for "the war ain't looking too good, either", again Dr. Dobson basically reiterated what I said yesterday. The 2006 and 2008 elections have put a damper on conservative issues. But, that can be flipped in one or two elections. Just as the Dems rebounded in '06 after taking a beating in '04, the GOP can do the same in '10 or '12.
Your a fucking idiot...The Telegraph is widely known to be the mouthpiece of the Tory Party in Britain...pro church of england, pro military, pro small government, low taxes, pro israel, hardline on Northern Ireland...jeez the list goes on
far left media outlet...you make me laugh, shows how warped you christians really are...bunch of brainwashed fools
Few things are more comical here than someone, who bombed basic GRADE-SCHOOL grammar and English, calling someone else an “idiot”.
The point you missed by a country mile, genius, is that this paper incorrectly used Dobson's words. Neither he nor the "religious right" conceded any defeat. How does one concede defeat when he uses the words, "we are not going to give up now"?
-
Whatever it is, its juvenile, moronic, and a detriment to overall public discourse.
Serious, abortion and gay marriage are but two issues, there are dozens of others that are more important and pressing to me.
Indeed, and the "religious right" and other conservatives like Dr. Dobson address those issues. But, the only time he and other "religious right" leaders tend to make the press is when the two aforementioned issues are cited.
-
Indeed, and the "religious right" and other conservatives like Dr. Dobson address those issues. But, the only time he and other "religious right" leaders tend to make the press is when the two aforementioned issues are cited.
They certainly dont come across that way.
I find that the "religious right" are far to eager to get the govt involved in my life in far too many ways whether it be internet censorship, etc.
-
They certainly dont come across that way.
I find that the "religious right" are far to eager to get the govt involved in my life in far too many ways whether it be internet censorship, etc.
Yes well, the religious right is RARELY libertarian in its leanings...
-
Yes well, the religious right is RARELY libertarian in its leanings...
Its ridiculous. The "religious right" are phonies. They make me want to puke.
-
Its ridiculous. The "religious right" are phonies. They make me want to puke.
The religious right has a lot in common with the irreligious left; they both want to run your lives; thank Zeus for LIBERTARIANISM.
-
The religious right has a lot in common with the irreligious left; they both want to run your lives; thank Zeus for LIBERTARIANISM.
QFT!
-
They certainly dont come across that way.
I find that the "religious right" are far to eager to get the govt involved in my life in far too many ways whether it be internet censorship, etc.
It ain’t the “religious right” letting people off the hook for peddling kiddie porn (or trying to legalize "sexting" ala Vermont), canceling school vouchers (forcing inner-city kids to go back to crappy public schools), or enacting measures that undermine parents’ authority over their children.
Those are some of the issues that Dobson and others have battled for years. But, again, that hardly gets the press that their opposition to abortion and gay “marriage” do.
-
The "sexting" does not bother me so much in that I dont want 16 year olds being classified as sexual predators if they send each other a naked pictures of themselves.
Its stupid, immoral, and immature, but a 16 y/o should not have his/her life ruined for it.
-
The "sexting" does not bother me so much in that I dont want 16 year olds being classified as sexual predators if they send each other a naked pictures of themselves.
Its stupid, immoral, and immature, but a 16 y/o should not have his/her life ruined for it.
The act isn't any less egregious simply because of the age of the perpetrator. In fact, that's part of the problem. Kids aren't going to be deterred from doing it, if they know there's no consequence for their actions.
-
The act isn't any less egregious simply because of the age of the perpetrator. In fact, that's part of the problem. Kids aren't going to be deterred from doing it, if they know there's no consequence for their actions.
Labeling someone a sexual predator for this is insanity and police state. Once this is on their record, its there for life.
I simply cannot understand how a "religious" person could ever support laws that punish people for life where no victims are involved.
Like I said, just because it is immoral does mean it should be illegal.
I am not in favor of granting the govt all these powers.
-
It ain’t the “religious right” letting people off the hook for peddling kiddie porn (or trying to legalize "sexting" ala Vermont), canceling school vouchers (forcing inner-city kids to go back to crappy public schools), or enacting measures that undermine parents’ authority over their children.
Those are some of the issues that Dobson and others have battled for years. But, again, that hardly gets the press that their opposition to abortion and gay “marriage” do.
The problem is, you guys love to tell others what to do, that's the real problem, never mind your stupid religious beliefs.
-
The Republicans would be best off if they would cut their ties with the Religious Right.
Then they would be an alternative for so many more voters that get turned off by the moral conservatism.
A lot of the activists that today support the Democrats on the issues of Gay Rights and the Abortion issue alone, would re-think their party affiliation.
-
Labeling someone a sexual predator for this is insanity and police state. Once this is on their record, its there for life.
I simply cannot understand how a "religious" person could ever support laws that punish people for life where no victims are involved.
Like I said, just because it is immoral does mean it should be illegal.
I am not in favor of granting the govt all these powers.
My fellow NYCer, the religious are obsessed with nonexistent crimes what wise people call victimless crimes. Believe it or not, they are even worse than leftists in telling you what you are supposed to do with your life...
-
The Republicans would be best off if they would cut their ties with the Religious Right.
Then they would be an alternative for so many more voters that get turned off by the moral conservatism.
A lot of the activists that today support the Democrats on the issues of Gay Rights and the Abortion issue alone, would re-think their party affiliation.
Never will happen...
-
My fellow NYCer, the religious are obsessed with nonexistent crimes what wise people call victimless crimes. Believe it or not, they are even worse than leftists in telling you what you are supposed to do with your life...
Where does this moralizing end from both sides???
The far left and religious right just cant stop. They cant leave people alone. Its like an addiction they have to telling everyone what do and how to live all the time.
Its sickening.
Stay out of my bedroom
Stay out of my wallet
Stay out of Ipod
Stay out of car
There seems to be no end to these people trying to tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to buy, what to sell, what to watch, what to eat, what to read, what to listen to, who to marry, what guns I can and cant buy, etc etc.
-
Where does this moralizing end from both sides???
The far left and religious right just cant stop. They cant leave people alone. Its like an addiction they have to telling everyone what do and how to live all the time.
Its sickening.
Stay out of my bedroom
Stay out of my wallet
Stay out of Ipod
Stay out of car
There seems to be no end to these people trying to tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to buy, what to sell, what to watch, what to eat, what to read, what to listen to, who to marry, what guns I can and cant buy, etc etc.
Preaching to the choir my friend. A lot of things would be a lot simpler if people just lived by the credo of live and let live and do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anybody else, live your own life, etc...I think the future of the US could be libertarianism...
-
Few things are more comical here than someone, who bombed basic GRADE-SCHOOL grammar and English, calling someone else an “idiot”.
The point you missed by a country mile, genius, is that this paper incorrectly used Dobson's words. Neither he nor the "religious right" conceded any defeat. How does one concede defeat when he uses the words, "we are not going to give up now"?
yeah the way people write on internet posting boards is indicative of their grammar skills...
in all fairness i think you missed the point...i dont actually care if the paper used his words incorrectly or not, and thats not what i was hauling you up for. I merely pointed out how little you know about the media...which i think you will admit is true if you call the telegraph, 'far left media'
if you have an interesting point to make try harder than pulling me up on my internet grammar since i do actually write for a living
-
Labeling someone a sexual predator for this is insanity and police state. Once this is on their record, its there for life.
That’s too bad. Maybe, they ought to think twice before they do something stupid like sending pictures of themselves (or other people naked). The naked pictures in cyberspace are there, for life, too.
A great deal of this “sexting” involved kids sending pictures of other kids. There are cases where a jilted guy decided to get back as his ex-girlfriend by firing naked pictures of the girl (which she sent exclusively to him) to all his buddies. There’s no erasing that.
I simply cannot understand how a "religious" person could ever support laws that punish people for life where no victims are involved.
The victims are the people themselves. We've seen FAR too many examples of how sexually explicit pictures have come back to haunt people years after the fact. If you don't believe, just ask former Ms. America, Vanessa Williams.
Teachers have been fired for their porno flicks/pics, done years ago but brought to the surface.
No victims involved? I beg to differ.
From a "religious" perspective, harming yourself is just as bad as harming someone else. From a not-so-“religious” perspective, if you would bring harm to yourself, you’d be more likely to harm another.
Like I said, just because it is immoral does mean it should be illegal.
I am not in favor of granting the govt all these powers.
Maybe not! But something needs to be done about things like this and done quickly.
The problem is, you guys love to tell others what to do, that's the real problem, never mind your stupid religious beliefs.
So do “you guys”, never mind your stupid non-religious beliefs.
My fellow NYCer, the religious are obsessed with nonexistent crimes what wise people call victimless crimes. Believe it or not, they are even worse than leftists in telling you what you are supposed to do with your life...
PLEASE!!! Why don't you take a good look at your non-religious buddies who have heart attacks every December, when they see a Nativity scene. Who else get this bent out of shape about someone they DON'T believe to exist?
Then, there are those lovely lawsuits about our Pledge of Allegiance. Apparently two words (referencing Mr. Allegedly non-existent) have scarred their poor enlightened pysches beyond repair.
Preaching to the choir my friend. A lot of things would be a lot simpler if people just lived by the credo of live and let live and do whatever you want as long as you're not hurting anybody else, live your own life, etc...I think the future of the US could be libertarianism...
That silly mantra doesn't quite work out as planned in the real world, because at some point, "do whatever you want" takes precedence over "as long as you're not hurting anybody else", notwithstanding how easily people can be "hurt" these days (I refer you again to those pyschologically-wounded atheists) and harming one's self is just as detrimental as harming someone else.
-
yeah the way people write on internet posting boards is indicative of their grammar skills...
in all fairness i think you missed the point...i dont actually care if the paper used his words incorrectly or not, and thats not what i was hauling you up for. I merely pointed out how little you know about the media...which i think you will admit is true if you call the telegraph, 'far left media'
if you have an interesting point to make try harder than pulling me up on my internet grammar since i do actually write for a living
You get paid to write for a living; yet, you mix up the pronoun “your” for the word “you’re”, a contraction of the words, “you are”.
ALLLRIGHTY, THEN!!!!
My point was already made. But, in case you missed it, Dr. James Dobson DID NOT (on behalf of himself, Focus on the Family, or the “religious right”) concede defeat, regarding the cultural issues of this country. He did not do so, in his statement to FOTF nor on his appearance on “Hannity” last night.
-
The Republicans would be best off if they would cut their ties with the Religious Right.
Funny!!! Nobody was saying that in 2004, when Bush got re-elected. In fact, the "Religious Right" got blamed for his second term.
Besides, as the saying in the South goes, "You dance with the one that brung ya!!!" That segment is what got the GOP in power in the first place.
They may not win with them; but they WILL NOT WIN without them, bottom line.
Then they would be an alternative for so many more voters that get turned off by the moral conservatism.
A lot of the activists that today support the Democrats on the issues of Gay Rights and the Abortion issue alone, would re-think their party affiliation.
You forget that a good number of the "Religious Right" actually voted for Obama, largely because they were (a) quite unimpressed with John McCain and (b) mad at the GOP for not delivering on its campaign promises.
-
First, this culture war hardly exists merely in Dobson's head.
Second, you again fail to read the rest of Dobson’s statement. If that weren't enough, Dobson was on "Hannity" last night and his statements were anything but that of someone who "condeded" defeat. Dobson pointed what I mentioned yesterday, on the marriage issue, namely that 30 states have passed marriage amendments, clearly defining marriage as a 1M-1W union.
As for "the war ain't looking too good, either", again Dr. Dobson basically reiterated what I said yesterday. The 2006 and 2008 elections have put a damper on conservative issues. But, that can be flipped in one or two elections. Just as the Dems rebounded in '06 after taking a beating in '04, the GOP can do the same in '10 or '12.
yes the "culture war" exists mostly inside the skulls of the religious right who feel that what they value is somehow being attacked.
The majority of secular society (even those that are religious or spiritual) just don't give a shit.....at least not beyond the fact that we have to deal with religious wack jobs who are trying to impose their values on the rest of society.
Look at it this way, secular society was and is perfectly fine allowing freedom of religious expression. It's the religious right who has the problem with the rest of the country not adopting their beliefs.
-
yes the "culture war" exists mostly inside the skulls of the religious right who feel that what they value is somehow being attacked.
The majority of secular society (even those that are religious or spiritual) just don't give a shit.....at least not beyond the fact that we have to deal with religious wack jobs who are trying to impose their values on the rest of society.
Look at it this way, secular society was and is perfectly fine allowing freedom of religious expression. It's the religious right who has the problem with the rest of the country not adopting their beliefs.
SQFT
-
Look at it this way, secular society was and is perfectly fine allowing freedom of religious expression. It's the religious right who has the problem with the rest of the country not adopting their beliefs.
So true.
-
The religious right has a lot in common with the irreligious left; they both want to run your lives; thank Zeus for LIBERTARIANISM.
I see the religious right wanting to control and restrict my life (my = everyone)
I'm not aware of any cohesive group of the "irreligious left"
-
Where does this moralizing end from both sides???
The far left and religious right just cant stop. They cant leave people alone. Its like an addiction they have to telling everyone what do and how to live all the time.
Its sickening.
Stay out of my bedroom
Stay out of my wallet
Stay out of Ipod
Stay out of car
There seems to be no end to these people trying to tell everyone what to do, how to live, what to buy, what to sell, what to watch, what to eat, what to read, what to listen to, who to marry, what guns I can and cant buy, etc etc.
;D ;D ;D
-
yes the "culture war" exists mostly inside the skulls of the religious right who feel that what they value is somehow being attacked.
I'm sorry!! I wasn't aware that all the heart attacks that atheists have every December, when they see a Nativity scene, happened merely inside people's skulls.
The majority of secular society (even those that are religious or spiritual) just don't give a shit.....at least not beyond the fact that we have to deal with religious wack jobs who are trying to impose their values on the rest of society.
Look at it this way, secular society was and is perfectly fine allowing freedom of religious expression. It's the religious right who has the problem with the rest of the country not adopting their beliefs.
Is that right??
Tell that to the guy, filing a frivolous lawsuit, blubbering about having his "religious freedom" violated at at baseball game, when security asked that he remained seated, during the singing of "God Bless America".
Then, there's the case at the College of Alameda, where a student is facing SUSPENSION for the horrific crime of praying for (and with) his sick professor, to the grief of another professor. I guess that's just in the skulls, too. ::) .
On top of that, who is it, trying to impose gay "marriage" via the courts, after the "REST OF SOCIETY" (i.e. the at-least 51% of the people) already voted to have marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman?
-
I'm sorry!! I wasn't aware that all the heart attacks that atheists have every December, when they see a Nativity scene, happened merely inside people's skulls.
Is that right??
It actually is in your their skulls... Most non religious people still follow the Holidays as a time of joy and happiness... especially those that have children.
Very very few people give a shit about the nativity scene if they aren't religious.
-
It actually is in your their skulls... Most non religious people still follow the Holidays as a time of joy and happiness... especially those that have children.
Very very few people give a shit about the nativity scene if they aren't religious.
Again, tell that to some of these atheists filing bone-headed lawsuits about them. I refer you to what went down JUST LAST YEAR in Washington state. They're the one obsessing about someone that they (or a handful of them) don't believe to exist.
-
Contrary to what you may think, I am against religion influencing politics by and large.
Whether it be democrats who pimp pimp the black churches or the right pimping those mega churches out west, its wrong and stupid.
Well said!
-
Well said!
I call that the standard, "Praise the Lord and vote for me" routine.
I don't have a problem with that all, by Dems or Republicans, although it would be nice if the ACLU would quit blubbering about GOP candidates visiting certain churches while leaving Dem candiates relatively unscathed.
Policy is about laws, about right and wrong. And your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) help shape what you view as right or wrong.
As Dr. King once said, the church should not be the master not the slave of the state, but its conscience. With that said, Dr. King's religious beliefs helped mold the black civil rights movement, which had a HUGE influence on public policy.
By Straw Man's warped standards, Dr. King (one of America's greatest champions of civil rights and liberties) was a "religious whack job".
-
i think its true that religion as we know it is on its way out. it is being replaced with political affiliation. it is only called political affiliation because people are afraid to call it what it really is, RELIGIOUS faith in a political party. that is why there were people sobbing at obamas inauguration. that is why there are people on political message boards blasting eachother on a daily basis over eachother's opinions about the honor, character, and integrity of politicians that they have never met. same thing. different package. you all might wanna thnk about that before you blast someone for their religious beliefs on a political message board.
-
I see the religious right wanting to control and restrict my life (my = everyone)
I'm not aware of any cohesive group of the "irreligious left"
Actually, they’re known more as the “liberal left. But, as one pundit puts it, “The only thing they are liberal about is hard drugs and sex. In every other respect, they want to control your lives.”
-
Actually, they’re known more as the “liberal left. But, as one pundit puts it, “The only thing they are liberal about is hard drugs and sex. In every other respect, they want to control your lives.”
You guys are worse.
-
Again, tell that to some of these atheists filing bone-headed lawsuits about them. I refer you to what went down JUST LAST YEAR in Washington state. They're the one obsessing about someone that they (or a handful of them) don't believe to exist.
You mean where one person made something an issue? It is hardly indicative of Atheism... Most atheists really don't give a shit.
-
I'm sorry!! I wasn't aware that all the heart attacks that atheists have every December, when they see a Nativity scene, happened merely inside people's skulls.
Is that right??
Tell that to the guy, filing a frivolous lawsuit, blubbering about having his "religious freedom" violated at at baseball game, when security asked that he remained seated, during the singing of "God Bless America".
Then, there's the case at the College of Alameda, where a student is facing SUSPENSION for the horrific crime of praying for (and with) his sick professor, to the grief of another professor. I guess that's just in the skulls, too. ::) .
On top of that, who is it, trying to impose gay "marriage" via the courts, after the "REST OF SOCIETY" (i.e. the at-least 51% of the people) already voted to have marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman?
so in your first example you're saying a guy is filing a frivolous lawsuit because he wanted to stand up during God Bless America and someone stopped him?
In the second example a guy wants to "pray"..and he got suspended from school?
and then "WHO" is trying to impose gay marriage?
Are these events related?
Do you have some specific point?
-
You mean where one person made something an issue? It is hardly indicative of Atheism... Most atheists really don't give a shit.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the aforementioned example was exhaustive.
-
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the aforementioned example was exhaustive.
Those that care too much about the issue (a nativity scene) on both sides are in the minority.
-
so in your first example you're saying a guy is filing a frivolous lawsuit because he wanted to stand up during God Bless America and someone stopped him?
In the second example a guy wants to "pray"..and he got suspended from school?
and then "WHO" is trying to impose gay marriage?
Are these events related?
Do you have some specific point?
Of course (your repeatedly missing the point hardly means that I lack one)!!! Your claim that the culture wars exist mainly in the heads of the "religious right" is patently false. The fact that a college student can be threatened with suspension from school, simply for praying for his professor (along with the other cases I mentioned) shatters that quip of yours.
That particular case is now going to a California court. Why don't you tell the judge that "it's just their heads"?
-
As I have stated, being religious is dying out among mainstream America.
What a rediculous statement. Either you believe or or you don't. It's only what the mainstream media wants to propagandize and want's you to believe. The "mainstream" can spew whatever they like, but your not in a million years going to tell a true Christian believer that "religion is dying". It's personal choice anything more is public perception.
-
I accidentally put this on the wrong thread.......
Here's a follow-up that College of Alameda story. The school is trying to get a case thrown out of court. Two students are suing the school for threatening to suspend them, simply because one of them was praying for and with a sick professor. And guess what time of year this incident started......CHRISTMAS.
CoA Prayer Lawsuit Can Move Forward
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston has refused the College of Alameda's attempts to have a case involving students' right to pray thrown out of court. Students Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga are alleging that the college violated their First Amendment rights when a teacher stopped Kyriacou from praying, and then told both defendants that they could not pray.
Just before Christmas 2007 Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga wanted to give a present to one of their teachers at the College of Alameda. Kyriacou found the instructor who said she was not feeling well. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, Kyriacou offered to pray for her. When she started her prayer faculty member Derek Piazza, who shared the office with the sick instructor, stepped in and interrupted her saying she was not allowed to pray. Kyriacou stopped and left the office and found Omaga. Piazza followed her and repeated his rebuke to both students.
The students reported Piazza's behavior. In return they got letters from the college threatening to suspend them. PJI says that the letters provided no facts on which to make such a threat, listing only vague references to "disruptive or insulting behavior" and "willful disobedience."
During the administrative hearing that followed, college officials told Kyriacou they were disciplining her for praying for the sick teacher. Omaga was not part of the prayer; she was told her offense was being with Kyriacou when Piazza admonished the pair a short time later. The students asked the administrators to rescind the letter. The school refused, and Kyriacou and Omaga filed a lawsuit.
They turned to PJI for help and the institute assigned the case to the Walnut Creek firm of Bergquist, Wood and Anderson "To this day, the College of Alameda has never provided a real explanation for its threats to expel these students," said Steven N.H. Wood, an attorney with the firm. PJI president Brad Dacus called the situation outrageous. "Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well — with her consent — earn a suspension?" he asked in a Catholic News Agency story. "This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court."
Dacus called the rights of students to pray in public places or in colleges or universities is "the most fundamental protection of the free exercise of religion that we can imagine."
http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10 (http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10)
-
As I have stated, being religious is dying out among mainstream America.
Yet, every presidental election, we have the candidates from BOTH parties, hitting the "Praise the Lord and vote for me" circuits, visiting various churches.
::)
-
I accidentally put this on the wrong thread.......
Here's a follow-up that College of Alameda story. The school is trying to get a case thrown out of court. Two students are suing the school for threatening to suspend them, simply because one of them was praying for and with a sick professor. And guess what time of year this incident started......CHRISTMAS.
CoA Prayer Lawsuit Can Move Forward
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston has refused the College of Alameda's attempts to have a case involving students' right to pray thrown out of court. Students Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga are alleging that the college violated their First Amendment rights when a teacher stopped Kyriacou from praying, and then told both defendants that they could not pray.
Just before Christmas 2007 Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga wanted to give a present to one of their teachers at the College of Alameda. Kyriacou found the instructor who said she was not feeling well. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, Kyriacou offered to pray for her. When she started her prayer faculty member Derek Piazza, who shared the office with the sick instructor, stepped in and interrupted her saying she was not allowed to pray. Kyriacou stopped and left the office and found Omaga. Piazza followed her and repeated his rebuke to both students.
The students reported Piazza's behavior. In return they got letters from the college threatening to suspend them. PJI says that the letters provided no facts on which to make such a threat, listing only vague references to "disruptive or insulting behavior" and "willful disobedience."
During the administrative hearing that followed, college officials told Kyriacou they were disciplining her for praying for the sick teacher. Omaga was not part of the prayer; she was told her offense was being with Kyriacou when Piazza admonished the pair a short time later. The students asked the administrators to rescind the letter. The school refused, and Kyriacou and Omaga filed a lawsuit.
They turned to PJI for help and the institute assigned the case to the Walnut Creek firm of Bergquist, Wood and Anderson "To this day, the College of Alameda has never provided a real explanation for its threats to expel these students," said Steven N.H. Wood, an attorney with the firm. PJI president Brad Dacus called the situation outrageous. "Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well — with her consent — earn a suspension?" he asked in a Catholic News Agency story. "This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court."
Dacus called the rights of students to pray in public places or in colleges or universities is "the most fundamental protection of the free exercise of religion that we can imagine."
http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10 (http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10)
Good grief. I'd expect to see something like this on The Onion. Unbelievable.
-
Yet, every presidental election, we have the candidates from BOTH parties, hitting the "Praise the Lord and vote for me" circuits, visiting various churches.
::)
While the Religious types are a minority... They are still a good sized percentage.
-
While the Religious types are a minority... They are still a good sized percentage.
DEAD WRONG on that one. There are lots of people of faith who voted for Obama. You make the erroneous assumption that those who are "religious types" voted exclusively GOP.
I can tell you that first hand. My wife and I both voted for Bush in 2004. Yet, she voted Obama last year; while I picked McCain.
-
DEAD WRONG on that one. There are lots of people of faith who voted for Obama. You make the erroneous assumption that those who are "religious types" voted exclusively GOP.
I can tell you that first hand. My wife and I both voted for Bush in 2004. Yet, she voted Obama last year; while I picked McCain.
What did I say that was wrong? I didn't say what party they voted for.
Did you read something I didn't type?
-
DEAD WRONG on that one. There are lots of people of faith who voted for Obama. You make the erroneous assumption that those who are "religious types" voted exclusively GOP.
I can tell you that first hand. My wife and I both voted for Bush in 2004. Yet, she voted Obama last year; while I picked McCain.
Duuuude. So I'm not the only one. lol. :)
-
I accidentally put this on the wrong thread.......
Here's a follow-up that College of Alameda story. The school is trying to get a case thrown out of court. Two students are suing the school for threatening to suspend them, simply because one of them was praying for and with a sick professor. And guess what time of year this incident started......CHRISTMAS.
CoA Prayer Lawsuit Can Move Forward
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston has refused the College of Alameda's attempts to have a case involving students' right to pray thrown out of court. Students Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga are alleging that the college violated their First Amendment rights when a teacher stopped Kyriacou from praying, and then told both defendants that they could not pray.
Just before Christmas 2007 Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga wanted to give a present to one of their teachers at the College of Alameda. Kyriacou found the instructor who said she was not feeling well. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, Kyriacou offered to pray for her. When she started her prayer faculty member Derek Piazza, who shared the office with the sick instructor, stepped in and interrupted her saying she was not allowed to pray. Kyriacou stopped and left the office and found Omaga. Piazza followed her and repeated his rebuke to both students.
The students reported Piazza's behavior. In return they got letters from the college threatening to suspend them. PJI says that the letters provided no facts on which to make such a threat, listing only vague references to "disruptive or insulting behavior" and "willful disobedience."
During the administrative hearing that followed, college officials told Kyriacou they were disciplining her for praying for the sick teacher. Omaga was not part of the prayer; she was told her offense was being with Kyriacou when Piazza admonished the pair a short time later. The students asked the administrators to rescind the letter. The school refused, and Kyriacou and Omaga filed a lawsuit.
They turned to PJI for help and the institute assigned the case to the Walnut Creek firm of Bergquist, Wood and Anderson "To this day, the College of Alameda has never provided a real explanation for its threats to expel these students," said Steven N.H. Wood, an attorney with the firm. PJI president Brad Dacus called the situation outrageous. "Since when does praying for a sick teacher to get well — with her consent — earn a suspension?" he asked in a Catholic News Agency story. "This is not just a constitutional violation; it is a complete lack of common sense. These students were not looking for a fight, but since the school to this day insists that it can expel them if they pray again, we will have to resolve it in federal court."
Dacus called the rights of students to pray in public places or in colleges or universities is "the most fundamental protection of the free exercise of religion that we can imagine."
http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10 (http://alamedasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5029&Itemid=10)
This sounds about as stupid as the school that expelled those two kids for suspicion of being gay. Basically you've got extreme examples of right wing and left wing wack jobs in positions of authority trying to impose their personal beliefs. I still think this culture war is mostly driving from the far right and examples like this are the absurd result. The vast majority of people would not give a shit if some kids wanted to pray for someone (or just pray in general) just as most people don't give a shit what the alleged sexual preference of some kid in their school might be. Neither is grounds for expulstion, suspension, etc...
-
Again, tell that to some of these atheists filing bone-headed lawsuits about them. I refer you to what went down JUST LAST YEAR in Washington state. They're the one obsessing about someone that they (or a handful of them) don't believe to exist.
Fringe people who actually join these groups and organisations.
-
This sounds about as stupid as the school that expelled those two kids for suspicion of being gay. Basically you've got extreme examples of right wing and left wing wack jobs in positions of authority trying to impose their personal beliefs. I still think this culture war is mostly driving from the far right and examples like this are the absurd result. The vast majority of people would not give a shit if some kids wanted to pray for someone (or just pray in general) just as most people don't give a shit what the alleged sexual preference of some kid in their school might be. Neither is grounds for expulstion, suspension, etc...
And, there are those who would say that it's the far-left that's driving this culture war, by taking "offense" to anything remotely religious.
In the case of those two girls who got expelled, this was simply reinforcement of school policy. These girls attended a religious school, in which the guidelines and policy, particularly as it relates to homosexuality, were clearly indicated.
Furthermore, it wasn't mere suspicion. As I recall, at least one of those girls admitted to being gay on her MySpace page, discovered by another student.
When questioned directly, neither denied that they were gay. Nor did either denied that what was found on their pages was false.
Again, when you attend a private religious school, you and/or your parents read the student handbook and school's policy on conduct and behavior and you sign documents, agreeing to abide by those rules. And you do so, with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that certain types of behavior will get you expelled.
Obviously, this college doesn't have any rules about praying, at least not private prayer done individually with the consent of both parties.
Here's more on that case:
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on March 31 rejected an attempt by the college district to dismiss the case, a ruling that the students' attorneys say indicates their lawsuit has merit.
"It's not about money at all, it's about principle," said Steven Wood, a Walnut Creek attorney who filed the lawsuit. "The students want the district to admit that it was wrong, apologize and recognize that they have the right to take part in nondisruptive prayer."
According to court documents, Kyriacou was praying with an instructor in December 2007 — after the instructor said she was feeling ill — when another instructor entered the office and told the student that praying was not allowed. Soon afterward, Kyriacou was talking with Omaga in a hallway, where the same instructor confronted them and said, "You can't be doing that in there. That's our office."
Less than a week later, both students received letters informing them that they were being suspended, citing violation of Section III.A.12 of the district's student conduct policy, which reads, "Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity; or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises."
Peralta administrators later backed away from the suspensions after meeting with the students and their attorney. Instead, administrators formally warned the women that they cannot engage in disruptive behavior.
Wood said Wednesday that he will meet with Peralta lawyers within the next several weeks to try to resolve the case, including through mediation. He said they are seeking a revision of the district's policy so that prayers would not be prohibited as long as they are not disruptive.
If they cannot reach agreement, the case could go to a jury, Wood said.
Kyriacou and Omaga routinely pray while at school, according to court documents.
According to the complaint, "They sometimes take short breaks to quietly pray with each other or with other classmates on the balcony outside class," and Kyriacou "occasionally makes quiet, nondisruptive personal prayers during class and lab, such as saying 'Lord Jesus, help me.' "
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12110179 (http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12110179)
Exactly what was so "disruptive" about praying in a office relatively quietly with her teacher? Does this particular professor (Derek Piazza) have super-sensitive ears that vibrate violently at the slightest hint of someone offering supplication to his/her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
-
And, there are those who would say that it's the far-left that's driving this culture war, by taking "offense" to anything remotely religious.
In the case of those two girls who got expelled, this was simply reinforcement of school policy. These girls attended a religious school, in which the guidelines and policy, particularly as it relates to homosexuality, were clearly indicated.
Furthermore, it wasn't mere suspicion. As I recall, at least one of those girls admitted to being gay on her MySpace page, discovered by another student.
When questioned directly, neither denied that they were gay. Nor did either denied that what was found on their pages was false.
Again, when you attend a private religious school, you and/or your parents read the student handbook and school's policy on conduct and behavior and you sign documents, agreeing to abide by those rules. And you do so, with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that certain types of behavior will get you expelled.
Obviously, this college doesn't have any rules about praying, at least not private prayer done individually with the consent of both parties.
Here's more on that case:
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston on March 31 rejected an attempt by the college district to dismiss the case, a ruling that the students' attorneys say indicates their lawsuit has merit.
"It's not about money at all, it's about principle," said Steven Wood, a Walnut Creek attorney who filed the lawsuit. "The students want the district to admit that it was wrong, apologize and recognize that they have the right to take part in nondisruptive prayer."
According to court documents, Kyriacou was praying with an instructor in December 2007 — after the instructor said she was feeling ill — when another instructor entered the office and told the student that praying was not allowed. Soon afterward, Kyriacou was talking with Omaga in a hallway, where the same instructor confronted them and said, "You can't be doing that in there. That's our office."
Less than a week later, both students received letters informing them that they were being suspended, citing violation of Section III.A.12 of the district's student conduct policy, which reads, "Disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience, habitual profanity or vulgarity; or the open and persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises."
Peralta administrators later backed away from the suspensions after meeting with the students and their attorney. Instead, administrators formally warned the women that they cannot engage in disruptive behavior.
Wood said Wednesday that he will meet with Peralta lawyers within the next several weeks to try to resolve the case, including through mediation. He said they are seeking a revision of the district's policy so that prayers would not be prohibited as long as they are not disruptive.
If they cannot reach agreement, the case could go to a jury, Wood said.
Kyriacou and Omaga routinely pray while at school, according to court documents.
According to the complaint, "They sometimes take short breaks to quietly pray with each other or with other classmates on the balcony outside class," and Kyriacou "occasionally makes quiet, nondisruptive personal prayers during class and lab, such as saying 'Lord Jesus, help me.' "
http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12110179 (http://www.insidebayarea.com/news/ci_12110179)
Exactly what was so "disruptive" about praying in a office relatively quietly with her teacher? Does this particular professor (Derek Piazza) have super-sensitive ears that vibrate violently at the slightest hint of someone offering supplication to his/her Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
my recollection is that neither girl admitted to being gay nor do I recall anyone showing any "rule" that they school had regarding homosexuality. Basically they were suspended because they were suspected of having gay feeling and no specific rule or violation was ever mentioned. (that I can recall)
How do you know that in the case of the students praying that they didn't have many prior warnings. It seems as though the school has decided that these students impromtu prayer breaks disruptive behaviour. They were after all in an office shared with a teacher who asked them not to do that in his office. Sounds like a pretty clear cut case of willful disobedience as mentioned in your highlighted text. Doesn't the teacher who shares the office also have to give consent? And if he does not and they persist they are violating the school rules. Pretty simple really. They should be glad they weren't kicked out on suspicion of praying
IMO - both cases are examples of extreme stupidity of the right and the left. Both situations could use a healthy dose of tolerance.
-
my recollection is that neither girl admitted to being gay nor do I recall anyone showing any "rule" that they school had regarding homosexuality. Basically they were suspended because they were suspected of having gay feeling and no specific rule or violation was ever mentioned. (that I can recall)
At least one said she was on her MySpace page, found and pointed out by a fellow student to his teacher. I think the other claimed on her page that she "wasn't sure".
When asked about the situation, neither denied the allegations.
Furthermore, the school does have rules about that. In fact, I linked a copy of the school's policy rules and standards, the last time we discussed this. Besides, having attended Christian schools most of my childhood and teenage life, I can tell you firsthand, that religious schools spell that out, in no uncertain terms.
How do you know that in the case of the students praying that they didn't have many prior warnings. It seems as though the school has decided that these students impromtu prayer breaks disruptive behaviour. They were after all in an office shared with a teacher who asked them not to do that in his office.
You mean...THEIR OFFICE!!!!
Sounds like a pretty clear cut case of willful disobedience as mentioned in your highlighted text. Doesn't the teacher who shares the office also have to give consent? And if he does not and they persist they are violating the school rules. Pretty simple really. They should be glad they weren't kicked out on suspicion of praying.
IMO - both cases are examples of extreme stupidity of the right and the left. Both situations could use a healthy dose of tolerance.
There was no indication from either article that this was an occuring thing. In fact, the student's initial intent was to give her professor a Christmas present. In any event, two people praying in an office is hardly "disruptive" to the point of the students' warranting suspension.
You highlighted Piazza's words, "That's OUR office!!!", to which I respond, "EXACTLY!!!!" It belongs to both Piazza and the other professor, who GAVE CONSENT to have that young lady pray for her.
In other words, she had permission from a college employee to do this. And, unless there's some unknown rule requiring both professors to consent to the office use, the sick professor's approval is just as valid as that of Piazza.
-
McWay - to the best of my recollection you never showed a rule that regarding homosexuality but feel free to repost. All I recall is that this particular sect of Lutherans believes that homosexuality is a sin.
And these kids were suspended for "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends. I'm also not aware that they were engaging in any sexual or inappropriate activitiy in school. What it comes down to is a few administrators making a judgement regarding the interpretation of their faith.... oddly no similar examples were given of students being expelled on suspicioun of violating any other interpretation of faith and you don't even have to be a member of the church to attend the school. It was all very subjective.
In the case of the students praying you are right it was a shared office and one would assume both teachers would need to give consent. Disruptive behaviour is the judgement of the teacher or administrator just like "suspicion" of gaysness needs to be the judgement of a weird middle aged man who runs a Lutheran high school.
-
McWay - to the best of my recollection you never showed a rule that regarding homosexuality but feel free to repost. All I recall is that this particular sect of Lutherans believes that homosexuality is a sin.
And these kids were suspended for "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends. I'm also not aware that they were engaging in any sexual or inappropriate activitiy in school. What it comes down to is a few administrators making a judgement regarding the interpretation of their faith.... oddly no similar examples were given of students being expelled on suspicioun of violating any other interpretation of faith and you don't even have to be a member of the church to attend the school. It was all very subjective.
A simple "No, we ain't gay!!!" would have settled the issue. What is so difficult about saying such, unless the allegations were valid?
No, you don't have to be a member of the faith. I went to school with a number of students who didn't go to my or any other church, and a few who weren't even professed Christians (in certain denominations, non-constituents and non-denominational/non-Christian students get charged higher tuition; I call it the "heathen rate" ;D ).
Nonetheless, if you attend their school, you play BY THEIR RULES; or, you get gone.
In the case of the students praying you are right it was a shared office and one would assume both teachers would need to give consent. Disruptive behaviour is the judgement of the teacher or administrator just like "suspicion" of gaysness needs to be the judgement of a weird middle aged man who runs a Lutheran high school.
Both teachers wouldn't need to give consent, unless the use of the office by one encroaches the property of the other. As far as the article states, they were praying by the sick professor's desk. And the issue here is the praying itself, not any space or property-violation against Piazza.
-
A simple "No, we ain't gay!!!" would have settled the issue. What is so difficult about saying such, unless the allegations were valid?
No, you don't have to be a member of the faith. I went to school with a number of students who didn't go to my or any other church, and a few who weren't even professed Christians (in certain denominations, non-constiuents and non-denomonational/non-Christian students get charged higher tuition; I call it the "heathen rate" ;D ).
Nonetheless, if you attend their school, you play BY THEIR RULES; or, you get gone.
They did say that but apparently that wasn't sufficient for the creepy middle aged man who ran the school. He felt it was appropriate to be in a room alone with each teenaged girl and ask them very personal and intimate questions and eventually decided that they had a "bond of intimacy" that IN HIS MIND was charateristic of a gay relationship.
frankly an even better response would have been "none of your fucking business".
from the an article on the topic: According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
Both teachers wouldn't need to give consent, unless the use of the office by one encroaches the property of the other. As far as the article states, they were praying by the sick professor's desk. And the issue here is the praying itself, not any space or property-violation against Piazza.
clearly the school disagrees with you. Common courtesy disagrees with you. If you share a space with someone it's common courtesy to not do something that offends them or that they object to. Perhaps their praying was distracting or disruptive at least to Piazza and it prevented him from concentrating on his work. Maybe he just finds it offensive and he has that right to tell them to do it somewhere else. If the person who shares his office has an objection then they should take it up with the administrator but the students don't get a choice in the matter.
Look most of this just boils down to common courtesy and a bit of tolerance. Personally I couldn't care less if someone wanted to do a quick prayer for someone if my office and it wouldn't bother me in the least. I would have to assume that, if I were inclined, I could mock them and ridicule them while they were doing it and they would have no objection. After all, I share that space too right?
Again, a little common courtesy is all that's really needed. I share some office space with a few other people and sometimes I have sardines at lunch. People hate the smell and so I go outside and eat. No one asked me to do this but I'm aware that it bothers them.
-
They did say that but apparently that wasn't sufficient for the creepy middle aged man who ran the school. He felt it was appropriate to be in a room alone with each teenaged girl and ask them very personal and intimate questions and eventually decided that they had a "bond of intimacy" that IN HIS MIND was charateristic of a gay relationship.
frankly an even better response would have been "none of your fucking business".
If I'm the principal and your behavior or conduct is violating my school's policy, it becomes my business!
But others have a different take, including Tom Scott, vice president of operations for the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 religious schools in the state and 4,000 nationwide. It does not represent Cal Lutheran, however.
"Private schools don't operate under public schools' standards," Scott said.
Private, religious schools do have the right to decide who attends, but recommends their officials have students and parents sign a waiver prior to admitting them asking them to adhere to Christian morals and standards as a condition of enrollment, he said.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/californian/21_33_4112_20_05.txt (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/californian/21_33_4112_20_05.txt)
Moreover.......
Students applying to the California Lutheran High School in Wildomar, California, a private religious school affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Synod and the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, are required to signify their acceptance of the rules governing the institution, which includes an agreement to conduct themselves according to rules of "Christian Conduct." According to Justice Richli, the school presented evidence about the view of non-marital sex and homosexuality embraced by the religious bodies that sponsor this school. "Lutherans believe that homosexuality is a sin," she wrote. "The School has a policy of refusing admission to homosexual students. Its ‘Christian Conduct’ rule provided that a student could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, whether on or off campus. This would include homosexual conduct."
http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/01/students-expelled-from-religious-school-over-lesbian-relationship.html (http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2009/01/students-expelled-from-religious-school-over-lesbian-relationship.html)
Again, when you attend their school, you play by their rules; or, you're gone.
from the an article on the topic: According to the principal, who called each girl out of class separately, both admitted they had hugged and kissed each other and told other students they were lesbians. The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends.
EXACTLY!!! That's all they admitted. At no point did they deny that they were lesbians. They said they loved each other as friends. That’s rather vague. That teacher, based on the e-mail and reports from other students wanted to know just how “friendly” these two were.
If someone’s accusing you of being gay and such isn’t the case, then it behooves you to make it plain (as we say in the church), especially when your scholastic tenure is at stake. Lost is all of this is the fact that, for all of the drama in this case, these students NEVER proclaimed that they were FALSELY ACCUSED. Nor, did they deny that their MySpace statements (one admitting to being bisexual; the other being unsure of her orientation, seen by the students and at least one teacher) were untrue.
In short, if you ain't gay, say you ain't gay and end the drama. They didn't. The principal made a judgment call which, at the end of the day, we find to be correct. They were lesbians, after all (from the NewYorkLawSchool link):
In this case, a student reported to a teacher that a female classmate had said that she loved another female classmate, without naming any names. The student told the teacher that he would be able to figure out who was involved by looking at the female students’ MySpace pages. The teacher reviewed the MySpace pages of his female students and discovered the two students who were subsequently expelled, each of whom had referred to being in love with the other. One of the students identified herself as "bi" and the other as "not sure" under the category of sexual orientation.
clearly the school disagrees with you. Common courtesy disagrees with you. If you share a space with someone it's common courtesy to not do something that offends them or that they object to. Perhaps their praying was distracting or disruptive at least to Piazza and it prevented him from concentrating on his work. Maybe he just finds it offensive and he has that right to tell them to do it somewhere else. If the person who shares his office has an objection then they should take it up with the administrator but the students don't get a choice in the matter.
The court may disagree with your assessment. With that said, "common courtesy" would be that you simply ask that they not do that, NOT SHOUT at the student and threaten her with expulsion.
Furthermore, your statement makes no sense. Piazza walked into the office, while they were praying. They weren't doing so, while he was grading papers or something to that effect.
Either way, the other professor can use the office as he or she sees fit, provided it doesn't impede on his space (which both the professor and student did not, seeing as Piazza was not there).
Look most of this just boils down to common courtesy and a bit of tolerance. Personally I couldn't care less if someone wanted to do a quick prayer for someone if my office and it wouldn't bother me in the least. I would have to assume that, if I were inclined, I could mock them and ridicule them while they were doing it and they would have no objection. After all, I share that space too right?
Again, a little common courtesy is all that's really needed. I share some office space with a few other people and sometimes I have sardines at lunch. People hate the smell and so I go outside and eat. No one asked me to do this but I'm aware that it bothers them.
-
If I'm the principal and your behavior or conduct is violating my school's policy, it becomes my business!
so you'd be ok if the principal declared that any form of prayer of any religion, any time/any place was not allowed on campus?
assuming that it's the schools policy of course
-
so you'd be ok if the princinpal declared that any form of prayer of any religion, any time/any place was not allowed on campus?
assuming that it's the schools policy of course
You are still talking about Cal Lutheran, are you not? Why would the principal of a Christian school do something like that?
It appears you're trying to paint some scenario about non-Christian prayers (i.e. Muslim ones). Is that the case?
-
You are still talking about Cal Lutheran, are you not? Why would the principal of a Christian school do something like that?
It appears you're trying to paint some scenario about non-Christian prayers (i.e. Muslim ones). Is that the case?
no, I'm talking any public school (as in the case of your example)
what if the school decided it's policy was that no religious activity of any kind is allowed on school grounds
If that were school policy you'd be fine with that right?
-
no, I'm talking any public school (as in the case of your example)
what if the school decided it's policy was that no religious activity of any kind is allowed on school grounds
If that were school policy you'd be fine with that right?
haven't you figuered out by now Mcway rarely directly answers your question.
-
no, I'm talking any public school (as in the case of your example)
what if the school decided it's policy was that no religious activity of any kind is allowed on school grounds
If that were school policy you'd be fine with that right?
Nope!! Because that clashes with our federal Constitution!! People can pray on school grounds, under certain conditions.
Furthermore, the example I used was referring to PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Cal Lutheran is a private religious school.
-
haven't you figuered out by now Mcway rarely directly answers your question.
He's figured out that you're woefully and pitifully wrong........as usual.
I simply wanted him to clarify his question. He did; and I answered it.
Now, if you're done making yourself look silly (which is highly unlikely).........
-
Nope!! Because that clashes with our federal Constitution!! People can pray on school grounds, under certain conditions.
Furthermore, the example I used was referring to PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Cal Lutheran is a private religious school.
The Lutheran School example was about two teenaged girls being interrogated by a middle aged man who for some reason thinks it's appropriate to make them either admit or deny being gay for each other. That's very weird and it wouldn't matter at all if it was my kid or yours.
Your example in this thread was about a couple of students in a public school who think they have the right to pray in an office that doesn't belong to them against the preference of a teacher who occupies that office. The school claims the right to declare that action as "persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises."
I think both circumstances would have been non-issues with a bit of tact, tolerance and fucking common sense.
-
The Lutheran School example was about two teenaged girls being interrogated by a middle aged man who for some reason thinks it's appropriate to make them either admit or deny being gay for each other. That's very weird and it wouldn't matter at all if it was my kid or yours.
No, it's not weird. These students were suspected of engaging in conduct that violates the school's policy, which they (and their parents) agreed to uphold. The principal has every right to get to the bottom of the situation.
Your example in this thread was about a couple of students in a public school who think they have the right to pray in an office that doesn't belong to them against the preference of a teacher who occupies that office. The school claims the right to declare that action as "persistent defiance of the authority of, refusal to comply with directions of, or persistent abuse of, college employees in the performance of their duty on or near the school premises or public sidewalks adjacent to school premises."
You forget that the students prayed in an office FOR one of the people, to whom that office belongs, WITH THAT PERSON'S CONSENT.
That isn't any defiance of authority. One of the "college employees" let them do it.
I think both circumstances would have been non-issues with a bit of tact, tolerance and fucking common sense.
For the most part, you are correct.
-
haven't you figuered out by now Mcway rarely directly answers your question.
I know - it's pointless trying to discuss nuance with an idealogue
-
I know - it's pointless trying to discuss nuance with an idealogue
What are you talking about, Straw Man?
Your question was unclear. So, I asked you what I did, to get a clear understanding of what exactly you were asking. Once your question was clarifiied, I answered it DIRECTLY!
But, in case you missed it, the answer to your question was........
"Nope!! Because that clashes with our federal Constitution!! People can pray on school grounds, under certain conditions."
Plain and simple, even L Dawg can grasp it (I think........but I wouldn't bet any money on it).
-
No, it's not weird. These students were suspected of engaging in conduct that violates the school's policy, which they (and their parents) agreed to uphold. The principal has every right to get to the bottom of the situation.
they weren't or at least said they weren't and they were not doing anything on school grounds .....
You forget that the students prayed in an office FOR one of the people, to whom that office belongs, WITH THAT PERSON'S CONSENT.
That isn't any defiance of authority. One of the "college employees" let them do it.
clearly the school doesn't agree with you and seems to think their own judgement overrides that of the students or even one of the teachers
in both cases the school seems to think they are the final authority........right?
For the most part, you are correct.
for the most part, I usually am
-
they weren't or at least said they weren't and they were not doing anything on school grounds .....
Yes, they did. They said as much on their MySpace cites and openly stated that to their fellow students, at least one of whom reported it to the teacher, without giving the girls' name. The teacher put two-and-two together and figured out who they were.
When asked if they were indeed gay, there was no denial (not even that the MySpace statements were erroneous). And their subsequent lawsuit did NOT charge the school with suspending them on false accusations.
As for their being on school grounds, that doesn't matter. Once again (per the NewYorkLawSchool link):
According to Justice Richli, the school presented evidence about the view of non-marital sex and homosexuality embraced by the religious bodies that sponsor this school. "Lutherans believe that homosexuality is a sin," she wrote. "The School has a policy of refusing admission to homosexual students. Its ‘Christian Conduct’ rule provided that a student could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, whether on or off campus. This would include homosexual conduct."
That's the policy; those girls agreed to abide by that policy or face possible suspension.
clearly the school doesn't agree with you and seems to think their own judgement overrides that of the students or even one of the teachers
And, thus, this case is going to court (despite the school's feverish attempts to have the case dropped).
in both cases the school seems to think they are the final authority........right?
Indeed. The big difference, however, is one school, Cal Lutheran, has sufficient evidence of policy violation (verbal and written admission of gay/bisexual behavior); the other, College of Alameda, does not (there's no violation of authority when a professor, the co-owner of the office space, gives permission for the student to pray for that professor).
for the most part, I usually am
I beg to differ. Remember this very thread is incorrectly titled, as there has been no concession of defeat by the "religious right" (especially not by one Dr. James Dobson from Focus on The Family).
-
What are you talking about, Straw Man?
Your question was unclear. So, I asked you what I did, to get a clear understanding of what exactly you were asking. Once your question was clarifiied, I answered it DIRECTLY!
But, in case you missed it, the answer to your question was........
"Nope!! Because that clashes with our federal Constitution!! People can pray on school grounds, under certain conditions."
Plain and simple, even L Dawg can grasp it (I think........but I wouldn't bet any money on it).
you're awfully cocky.I think you been drinkin to much blood of Christ tonight.
-
you're awfully cocky.I think you been drinkin to much blood of Christ tonight.
I did that last week, and it was only a teeny little glass!!!
;D
-
That doesn't matter. Once again (per the NewYorkLawSchool link):
According to Justice Richli, the school presented evidence about the view of non-marital sex and homosexuality embraced by the religious bodies that sponsor this school. "Lutherans believe that homosexuality is a sin," she wrote. "The School has a policy of refusing admission to homosexual students. Its ‘Christian Conduct’ rule provided that a student could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, whether on or off campus. This would include homosexual conduct."
That's the policy; those girls agreed to abide by that policy.
how many times are we going to do this
first - no proof the children (yes teenage girls) were engaging in homosexual conduct
also haven't seen anything they allegedly agreed to upon admission to the school (even any agreement to comply with the whims and suspcisions of a creepy weird administrator)
And, thus, this case is going to court (despite the school's feverish attempts to have the case dropped).
so it appears.
you'll agree with the outcome either way right?
Indeed. The big difference, however, is one school, Cal Lutheran, has sufficient evidence of policy violation (verbal and written admission of gay/bisexual behavior);
how many times is this now??
there was no admission or proof of any behaviour by either one and they weren't even expelled for behaviour but rather for the judgement of a school administrator that in his opinion the girls had "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," "The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends."
personally - if the courts say that religious schools can act in this manner (a manner I would personally call creepy, weird and most definitley discriminatory) then that's what they get to do for the time being
the other, College of Alameda, does not (there's no violation of authority when a professor, the co-owner of the office space, gives permission for the student to pray for that professor).
the college seems to think their ownership rights over-ride the teacher who gave consent. Hard to argue with that at the moment
I beg to differ. Remember this very thread is incorrectly titled, as there has been no concession of defeat by the "religious right" (especially not by one Dr. James Dobson from Focus on The Family).
the title of this thread is simply the title from an article in the first post of this thread.
Dobson clearly admit defeat in all his perceived battles to date
-
I did that last week, and it was only a teeny little glass!!!
;D
are you Catholic?
I wasn't aware the evangelicals believed in transubstantiation
-
McWay,
would it be OK with you if a teacher sharing an office wanted to pray to Satan or conduct a ceremony that condemned Jesus assuming one teacher consented and the other, who was a christian objected. Shouldn't the christian teacher just be ok with it or just leave his/her office during the activity
This would be Ok with you right?
-
how many times are we going to do this
first - no proof the children (yes teenage girls) were engaging in homosexual conduct
As many times as it takes, until the point registers in that head of yours ;D.
First, the proof: Written admission by the girls,themselves (on MySpace); testimony by fellow students.
also haven't seen anything they allegedly agreed to upon admission to the school (even any agreement to comply with the whims and suspcisions of a creepy weird administrator)
Get some bi-focals, Straw Man. The judge read the school's policy. It clearly states what the school's policy is and that compliance to such IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSION. Don't you think the court, at some point, would have copies (at the very least) of the admission forms, where the students and parents AGREED to comply with the school's rules?
there was no admission or proof of any behaviour by either one and they weren't even expelled for behaviour but rather for the judgement of a school administrator that in his opinion the girls had "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship," "The girls said they admitted only that they loved each other as friends."
The statements on their site indicate that one's bisexual and the other is "not sure"; plus they both state on their site that they're in love with each other (you don't say that about a mere "friend").
On top of that, there's the very nature of their suit:
The girls sued under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which forbids sexual orientation discrimination by places of public accommodation. They also claimed damages for invasion of privacy and false imprisonment – referring to their sequestration in closed rooms for questioning until they were sent home, as well as "outing" them to their parents.
How exactly did the school do any "outing" to their parents, if these girls ain't gay? ???
personally - if the courts say that religious schools can act in this manner (a manner I would personally call creepy, weird and most definitley discriminatory) then that's what they get to do for the time being
Religious schools have always been able to act in this matter. In fact, the judge dismissed the girls' claims of wrongful imprisonment.
the college seems to think their ownership rights over-ride the teacher who gave consent. Hard to argue with that at the moment
Yet, they're trying to get the suit dropped, which didn't happen. I think they're anticipating a big loss.
the title of this thread is simply the title from an article in the first post of this thread.
Dobson clearly admit defeat in all his perceived battles to date
Dobson made it clear, in the sentences following, that he has not conceded any defeat because "God is in control". Plus, he further clarified his statement on "Hannity" the following night.
-
McWay,
would it be OK with you if a teacher sharing an office wanted to pray to Satan or conduct a ceremony that condemned Jesus assuming one teacher consented and the other, who was a christian objected. Shouldn't the christian teacher just be ok with it or just leave his/her office during the activity
This would be Ok with you right?
What's with the hypothetical scenarios every time you have trouble making your arugments stick?
First of all, Piazza wasn't in the office, when this started. The student came to deliver a Christmas present and found out her teacher was ill. She asked if she could pray for the teacher, who agreed. Apparently, Piazza's beef was with prayer, in general, not prayer to a specific deity.
Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.
But, that's hardly the point. Every time your takes get cut off at the knees, you try drumming up some other scenario, with the expressed purpose of making the Christian the heel of the plot.
-
As many times as it takes, until the point registers in that head of yours ;D.
First, the proof: Written admission by the girls,themselves (on MySpace); testimony by fellow students.
again, when confronted the girls admitted nothing other than friendship - the school should have left it at that
Get some bi-focals, Straw Man. The judge read the school's policy. It clearly states what the school's policy is and that compliance to such IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSION. Don't you think the court, at some point, would have copies (at the very least) of the admission forms, where the students and parents AGREED to comply with the school's rules?
how can I read what you haven't posted.
Also, as you know, the girls admitted no relationship or sexual orientation in court
The statements on their site indicate that one's bisexual and the other is "not sure"; plus they both state on their site that they're in love with each other (you don't say that about a mere "friend").
even taken all by itself it is not an admission of conduct (which is what you've mentioned over and over) and only "feelings". There have been times where I felt like I wanted to kill someone but that's not the same as murder
Religious schools have always been able to act in this matter. In fact, the judge dismissed the girls' claims of wrongful imprisonment.
yep - the court upheld the right of the religious school to discrimate based on assumption of sexuality. On that we are in agreement
Yet, they're trying to get the suit dropped, which didn't happen. I think they're anticipating a big loss.
or ....maybe they just don't want to spend the time and money. Most people try to resolve rather than going to court for just that reason
Dobson made it clear, in the sentences following, that he has not conceded any defeat because "God is in control". Plus, he further clarified his statement on "Hannity" the following night.
.
would it make you feel better if I agree that for the mighty christian warriors will continue tilting at windmills?
OK - I concede they will continue the "fight"
after all, for the most part this is the same crowd that expects to be raptured in their lifetime
I don't doubt their dedication.
-
What's with the hypothetical scenarios every time you have trouble making your arugments stick?
First of all, Piazza wasn't in the office, when this started. The student came to deliver a Christmas present and found out her teacher was ill. She asked if she could pray for the teacher, who agreed. Apparently, Piazza's beef was with prayer, in general, not prayer to a specific deity.
Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.
But, that's hardly the point. Every time your takes get cut off at the knees, you try drumming up some other scenario, with the expressed purpose of making the Christian the heel of the plot.
it's a simple example and something you can easily answer
Let's pretend EVERYTHING is the same except they want to pray to Satan for their sick teacher or how about just do a Wiccan prayer or something.
yes or no
If no, why not (I already assume yes would mean you're being consistent in your belief so no need to explain further)
-
again, when confronted the girls admitted nothing other than friendship - the school should have left it at that
No, it shouldn't have, not with documentation of lesbian/bisexual conduct (and no denial of such by the girls).
how can I read what you haven't posted.
Also, as you know, the girls admitted no relationship or sexual orientation in court
Yet, they're suing for SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION. You don't file such a suit, if you are not gay. Plus, they claimed the school outed them to their parents. Once again, how do you engage in "outing" someone who isn't gay?
even taken all by itself it is not an admission of conduct (which is what you've mentioned over and over) and only "feelings". There have been times where I felt like I wanted to kill someone but that's not the same as murder
They've admitted the conduct to their students and on their page. When ask to confirm or deny, with suspension on the horizon, they did neither. Based on the policy, by which they agreed to abide, they can be kicked out of school.
yep - the court upheld the right of the religious school to discrimate based on assumption of sexuality. On that we are in agreement
There's no discrimination involved. The school spelled out its policy on homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Those girls agreed to abide by the rules but didn't. Hence, they're gone.
or ....maybe they just don't want to spend the time and money. Most people try to resolve rather than going to court for just that reason
They probably don't, especially if a LOSS is on the horzion.
-
it's a simple example and something you can easily answer
And, I already did (again, get the bi-focals)!!!
Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.
-
No, it shouldn't have, not with documentation of lesbian/bisexual conduct (and no denial of such by the girls).
Yet, they're suing for SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION. You don't file such a suit, if you are not gay. Plus, they claimed the school outed them to their parents. Once again, how do you engage in "outing" someone who isn't gay?
jumpin jebus this is getting tiresome. Their suit is not an admission of sexual orientation. According to your logic if they weren't gay then they could not sue i.e. by suing they are admitting it's true. Shit, even that freak who kicked them out wrote this:
“while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ...
There's no discrimination involved. The school spelled out its policy on homosexuality in no uncertain terms. Those girls agreed to abide by the rules but didn't. Hence, they're gone.
yes there was discrimination involved and the court said it was OK so stop feeling so defensive.
A California state appellate court held that a private religious high school is not a "business enterprise" and therefore is not subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.........i.e. the law can't prevent them from discriminating based on alleged sexual orientation.
They probably don't, especially if a LOSS is on the horzion.
well you're entitled your point of view. Most people and entities try avoid the time and expense of court ALL of the time.
-
And, I already did (again, get the bi-focals)!!!
Second of all, as long as the policy does NOT run afoul of any federal or state Constitution laws, nor any policy of the school itself, I have no issue with it.
You're right
I missed your response.
So you're OK if one teacher in a shared office wants to pray to Satan and the Christian teacher who shares the office has no right to object.
I applaud you. I would have assumed, being a christian, you would have objected.
Personally, I think two adults who share an office should be able to get along and within reason, respect the rights of the other person without having to get any administrator or higher authority involved
-
jumpin jebus this is getting tiresome. Their suit is not an admission of sexual orientation. According to your logic if they weren't gay then they could not sue i.e. by suing they are admitting it's true. Shit, even that freak who kicked them out wrote this:
“while there is no open physical contact between the two girls, there is still a bond of intimacy ... characteristic of a lesbian (relationship). ...
That is also a no-no at the school (notwithstanding the fact that they admitted on their pages and to fellow students that they'd been smooching).
yes there was discrimination involved and the court said it was OK so stop feeling so defensive.
A California state appellate court held that a private religious high school is not a "business enterprise" and therefore is not subject to the Unruh Civil Rights Act.........i.e. the law can't prevent them from discriminating based on alleged sexual orientation.
The suit IS an admission of sexual orientation. If they were kicked out for being gay yet they weren't, there'd be no need to try and use the Unruh Act. They could simply sue for being kicked out of school under false pretenses or false accusations. Plus, they accused the principal of "outing" them to their parents.
Again, how does the principal do that if they ain't gay?
Furthermore, the principal is hardly a "freak", for investigating and interviewing two students, accused of violating school policy, especially when the violation is grounds for expulsion.