What a beautiful world
 

*Note the sarcasm*

While I accept the rights of this school to set standards (private school), I am disgusted by the outright bigotry we allow in this society under the cover of religion. These are , quite frankly the types of headlines that make me very happy to no longer count myself as a Christian.


School Expels Girl for Having Gay Parents
Christian School Expels California Student Because Her Parents Are Lesbians
The Associated Press

Sep. 23, 2005 - A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school's superintendent said in a letter.

Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl's biological mother.

Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition.

Stob could not be reached for comment by the newspaper. Shay and her parents said they won't fight the ruling.

School administrators learned of the parents' relationship this week after Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina Clark said.

Clark and her partner have been together 22 years and have two other daughters, ages 9 and 19.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=1151655

I posted that on the main board I go to today too.

What a ridicolous school. The only thing I can't fathom is why the parents would want to send their kid to a school like that.

I tell you, it's too bad that homosexuality is so damned contagious. We won't be safe until we get all of them on their own remote island.

Maybe we could start a telethon?

The problem with a lot of today's Christianity is that it just gives some idiots excuses to feel better about themselves. They merely point to another group, villainize and demonize them, and they never have to look into their own hearts.

It's a perfect set up, isn't it?

Where's the problem? The school made the judgement that the student's parent's aren't living in a Christian lifestyle, and expelled the student. Obviously this school has certain standards of behavior that aren't being met by this particular family. Should the school's standards be allowed to be hijacked by a certain groups effective PR campaign?

Wow, and in California of all places. I would expect this kind of thing, in say, Utah or West Virginia, but never in California.

are you joking?

school rules are school rules

perhaps I should point this out again....as it was obviously not clear enough in my original post:

While I accept the rights of this school to set standards (private school), I am disgusted by the outright bigotry we allow in this society under the cover of religion.

Now maybe we can talk about the actual intended discussion , set before us by the thread.

"Christian lifestyle"? Is that where one quotes the bible and uses it as back-up for their narrow-minded beliefs? Or the one that touts the 'God loves everyone, except Gays, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Pagans, Goth, Metalheads and certain people in Vermont because I said so"?
Edit: Forgot my manners

ngdawg, I'll think you;ll find that, if you read the bible, God is pretty much only for the Jews.

I'm not sure I understand this kind of reasoning. I didn't read anywhere where the mothers of the student set out on a campaign to ensure everyone knew they were enrolling their daughter in a Christian school while announcing they were lesbians. In fact, the article states that the biological mother is not going to fight the ruling. How does this qualify as one group's PR campaign?

This became an issue when the school discovered their living situation and expelled the girl. After this occurrence, the parents may have contacted the media, but I would not call this a PR campaign by any group before the fact.

I'm with tecoyah on this. I respect the private school's right to set their admission standards any way they wish - that is, of course, if they are not receiving any federal funds under No Child Left Behind. If they are, then I will vehemently disagree with their right to discriminate.

If we alter the wording of their policies to read, "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a biracial relationship," does it garner the same amount of support? Before we fly off the handle claiming the issues are entirely separate, I would suggest that they are not as there was a time when biracial relationships were viewed as inconsistent with Christain teachings.

Lest there be any more debate, I also submit this:

The entire article can be found here

Certain groups of Christians have long used their faith as justification for bigotry and no amount of scripture quoting or claims of Christian-bashing will change that.

I've stared at this thread now for a bit and can't think of anything positive to add to the discussion. iIve wrote a half dozen responses, deleting everyone of them. They all have the same theme, fucking religion seems to cloud your judgement and make you insane. I bet this girl has awesome parents. Good thing she got out now before she got in too deep.

Tecoyah, you said it already, but i am not sure of the answer, it disgusts me as well.

It's wrong. Pure and simple. But I don't understand why the parents would <i>want</i> to send their daughter to a school with such policies.

Just a question (and I don't know the answer) but would it be different if the school policy was to disallow children who's parents were black?

I suppose you need to decide whether homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or something that comes naturally. Then, if you decide that it is a choice, you have to take your judgement call as to whether it's a moral one or not.

The school's rules are bigoted, no doubt about that from my point of view, but once again, I have to wonder why anyone would want to send their child to such a hateful school?

There really is little to be said beyond: As a private school they are free to set their own policies.

On the other hand this seems to be a highly bigoted policy. I don't think it would survive a court challenge.


Interestingly, in Canada Catholic schools are publicly funded (a weird historical blip). As public schools they can't pull stunts like this. There was a famous case a few years ago where a gay student wanted to take his boyfriend to the prom. He won the case.

i don't know (or really even care) why the parents decided to send their child to this school. perhaps the daughter wanted it, who knows. but why is the girl being punished for something she has absolutely no control over? it's quite possible she has a problem with her mother being a lesbian. she's 14, she can't change her situation and has no say in the choices her mother makes for her. i'd be a bit more sympathetic to the school if they expelled the student because she was gay. but punishing the girl for the "sins" of her mother...thought christianity was against that sort of thing?

These aren't christians... they are bureaucrats...

Look, it says right here in aritcle 14, paragraph 34... no gay parents.

Yup. Their house, their money, their rules.

That being said, I completely concur with tecoyah. It's really pathetic that they chose to kick out a 14 year old girl because of her PARENTS. I guarantee they didn't even bother to see that they've been together for 22 years and have 2 other children.

Oh well, their loss. I hope the kid grows up to be someone really important, and kicks all their self-righteous asses.

What is the point of having a religion and professing your faith in it, if you don't follow it? People of different religions have different standards of what is moral and it just so happens that this particular part of Christianity thinks that gays are not acting morally.

You might make sense debating their beliefs about gayness, but accusing them of being bigots is insanity; surely they should make sure that those seeking to be part of their group abide by their beliefs.

What would Jesus do?

Let's see... he accepted the poor, the suffering, the outcasts, the lepers, Levi the Tax collector and he was really and ass, whores...

Sounds like someone as lost their way...

Put another way, we don't accept this sort of behaviour from other groups... discrimination is not something we aspire to celebrate. However, you couch your hatred in religion and somehow it is palatable acceptable? I find it hard to rationalize... especially given the pious nature of the church.

Holy, holy, holy.

Though I agree that private schools should be allowed to set their own policies, I think there should be legislation in place to stop things like this. As mentioned before it's like not allowing a kid to attend the school because they're black. Actually now I think about it it's more like not allowing a kid to attend a school because their adopted parents are black. Ridiculous things like this (which seem to occur every day) really tarnish the image of Christianity.

This is what many of us are getting at...

Finally, someone with some sense. You can debate their beliefs about homosexuality, but it seems awful self-righteous and presumptuous to label people bigoted just because they disagree with a particular lifestyle choice. I'm really shocked that there are so many people who just can't comprehend that there's a large part of America that finds the gay lifestyle something immoral and/or unpleasant (especially when their rebuttals to this view have no substance). This school has certain beliefs, they work to ensure that those beliefs are followed.

Acually, it's nothing like not allowing a kid to attend because their adopted parents are black. Being black is not a lifestyle choice, being gay is.

No it isn't a choice. Accepting it, both as a gay person and as any individual should, is.

And here we come to the crux of the problem. Until this is settled, there can be no right or wrong. And as much as many people would like for there to be, there is still no proof that being gay is not a choice. So in the absence of that, this school was merely reacting against a lifestyle they felt ran counter their religious beliefs, and not the rampant bigotry many here have attempted to attribute.

That's not what I see happening. They are not merely disagreeing, but using their power to deprive a student. What I see is a group of people in power - the bigots - who are actively trying to prevent a certain segment of society - homosexuals - from sharing the same rights and privileges. Alansmithee: attempt if you will to show how the girl in question would be imposing upon the school if she attended. How does that affect anyone at the school? If a gay student was at the school, how would that adversely affect anyone attending? Who does it hurt and more importantly, how does it prevent the administrators from believing what they want to believe...that homosexuality is wrong?

Even if this is true (which is a topic for another thread), it's not something to be taken lightly... homosexual people don't wake up at the beginning of the day and decide to be gay...it's usually a life choice...even more significant than deciding upon a career or lifelong spouse. I might even be persuaded that it is not so much of a choice.

Besides...you know what else is a choice? Religion.

If a private Islamic school insisted that students wear turbans or burkas and face Mecca to pray 5 times a day, I'd accept it. There isn't a chance in hell that I would send my kids to the school, but I'd support their right to their beliefs. This is no different. While I find their beliefs offensive, they are entitled to hold them. I have a hard time understanding why these women would chose to send their child to this school.

As far as I know most christian schools have these kinds of rules in place. As the article noted, there are other lifestyle choices they dont allow as well. Unwed cohabitation for example. I dont think this is really about christians being bigoted towards homosexuals, they are just disapproving of the family situation. Unwed couples living together, homesexual RELATIONSHIPS, parents who are pornstars, etc dont quite mesh with the family values they try to instill in the kids. Id wager to say this wouldnt have been an issue if the mother wasnt in a relationship. The old saying "Dont hate the sinner, hate the sin" comes to mind.

Id even wager to say they probably hated to have to send this little girl away and struggled with the decision, but in the end came to the conclusion that it would be best for the rest of the children in the school.

Usually, the parents dont lie (or dont get caught), and the students in these kinds of situations get denied entry into school in the first place. We'll probably start hearing about more of these kinds of cases since its trendy to hate on christians these days (especially without trying to understand why they do what they do, and automatically chanting "BIGOT! BIGOT!").

This is a Christian (e.g. private) school; attending it is not something they are entitled to. Christians, like other religions, are made up of people who share a moral view. In order to join their group it makes sense that you must agree and follow their same moral stand. Just because the private Christian school looks shiny and cool does not mean they can simply go there without modifying their behavior and beliefs.

Homosexuality is a choice; while I will entertain arguments about why and to what people are attracted, the act of willingly having a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex is a choice. Period. This might be a life choice that is very important, but part of being Christian (in this case) is to NOT be homosexual. Period. Notice a trend? They don't care how big of a decision it was when it was made, the requirement is to change it.

Simply for the point of argument, lets assume that a gay person's attractions are not under their control. Being attracted is not the sin, it is the action that is the problem. Most religions have one or usually more things that members are expected to avoid. These things are often tempting, sometimes very much so. A mistake is usually forgiven, but in the case of simply refusing to follow such rules it is perfectly reasonable to say they are not a member of the religion. These people knew that homosexuality was considered bad, and they decided not to modify their behavior. If they don't play by the rules they get kicked out, which is what happened.

Everyone who thinks the school is bigoted
big·ot n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bigot

Ok now, guys, girls, don't be morons. The school, being a Christian school, is justifiably strongly partial to the Christian faith. It would not make much sense for them to invite those openly holding directly opposing views into their school, which was specifically created as being only for those with the same beliefs.

You apparently think that the proper way to act is to be tolerant of all the views and morals of others. You find intolerance... intolerable! It should be clear at this point that you are being bigoted toward this school that is taking a moral stand, and that if you truly believed in tolerance you would tolerate their intolerance and ShutTheFuckUp and GetBackToWork.

it may be beyond the reach of American law to punish this school appropriately. Certainly any state funding at all must be removed instantly. It would be pleasing to see mass boycots and withdrawal of children from the school. It is interesting how the Christian Right forms its morality so selectively. Because, you know, if the guide for how to live is really going to be Leviticus... my guess is that most people who call themselves Christians aren't doing too well.

It is only acceptable to support the school's actions, as long as the school also enforce the following standards:

Any parent who is remarried should have their children expelled from this school, and most divorcee's also.

Any child who eats pork or shellfish shall be expelled, the parents of any child eating the same shall be expelled.

any child who does any kind of work on Saturday, or whose parents do any kind of work on a a Saturday, shall be expelled.

I could go on, but I guess you get the idea? These commands are not open for debate. Certainly every person is free to believe of themselves and their God what they will... but it is not for the individual to say what a religion stands for. The God of the Christians is defined by the law as set out in the Bible.

If you do not follow the law, you cannot be a Christian. Even Jesus himself said that he did not come to contradict the prophets, but to reinfocre them. If this school is to arbitrarily decide which elements of the law it enforces and which it does not, then it commits sin. As the homosexual should be treated, so should the man who sleeps with his wife while she is on her period. So should the sinner who consumes unclean meat be treated, and so on.

If it were to be discovered that this school did allow the parents of divorced children, or that it did allow or even FORCE children to do homework on the Sabbath... certainly it should not be allowed to take the title of a Christian school. Freedom is one thing, but this would be merely fraud and deception... and the school's teaching would be a serious deviation and a grave sin.

You're right. The school is intolerant and therefore bigoted.Something in the story doesn't add up because the student was admitted to the school in the first place. The whole situation reeks of someone within the administration getting "cold feet." If the family was not in accordance with a "positive Christian lifestyle" (of which homosexuality certainly has been successfully argued as being a part of, by the way), then why admit them in the first place?Besides the fact that you've turned this into a semantic argument, you are almost right. People ought to be tolerant of all the views and morals of others, until they cause harm. There's no convincing evidence that a homosexual family can be more harmful to a school community than a heterosexual one.

As well, I am intolerant of the school's so called "moral stand" but their ability to discover morality is handicapped by their religion, but that's best not argued on this thread.

Bigotry is hidden under more names than religion, isn't it? Culture, perhaps? It's the heard mentality of general Christianity that encourages the bigot mentality.

California has its wacko-s just like every other state. Just because we're not back woods or 93% Mormon doesn't mean we're not immune to stupidity.

Agreed. I think the school and the people associated with such rules are, indeed, small minded little bigots, however - that is their right. I too am mystified why, as a lesbian parent, you'd want to put your kid through something like that knowing the problems that might come up.

Why send her there?
Perhaps the school is safer and has good teachers - Is a better school.

Perhaps the girl has a learning disability. Maybe the public school did not want her. When I was a kid (late 50s/early 60s) this happened to a friend of mine. He was a jewish kid with an IQ of 70. Only a Cathlic school would take him.

First off, you are not helping things by calling those who don't agree with you morons... or telling them to STFU...


I don't think there is any question in my mind that this school is being bigoted and intolerant. The thing is, I don't see homosexuality as a choice. It is not a lifestyle choices it is a biological imperitive.

And, as alansmithee points out, therein lies the crux of this argument.

If this were to be clear (i.e. it is a biological impertive and not just some willy nilly biological choice) I think you would have to agree this is school is bigoted. Alas this is not the case.


Personally I don't think the school is being very Christian at all. You are being rather broad in your brush strokes by suggesting that all Christians share the same point of view. There are many (no MANY) Christians who embrace homosexuality. Additionally, here are a some Lesbian parents who apparently are strong enough in their faith that they would like to send their straight, adopted daughter to a Christian school.

The school missed an opportunity to proseletyze.


EDIT: I am being tolerant of their intolerance... I am simply musing on their intolerance and deeming it bigoted. As a private school they are free to set policies. This policy can stand for now (until the biology is sorted or societal norms change). This doesn't change my opinion...

The article does not state where this school is - anywhere near a town of more than 200,000 people, however, probably has a choice of schools to attend. To some degree I assume this is the case, as over 90% of gays live in urban centres. But if it is in the middle of nowhere, I can see the point you make, even if it is not a decision I would likely make myself - I'd rather home school or move than force my kid to go to a school where the "educators" labelled me a bad person or evil or something.

Does anyone have more of this story or was it a little blurb story only? It contains just about zero details and before we do the usual dogpile on the intolerant Christians, lets try to get some facts first. This won't be the first time people flew off the handle on this kind of thing and made themselves look stupid or need I remind you of the 'Is your child a goth' hoax so many of you swallowed hook line and sinker. Anyone who had the slightest bit of understanding of how the Catholic Church works knew it made absolutely no sense, but hey they are Christians, lets make fun of them and hate them!

This line has me wondering...

"School administrators learned of the parents' relationship this week after Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina Clark said."

What exactly did she say? Was this child a major trouble maker and this was an excuse to expel her? Was her parents relationship discovered as the result of innocent discussion and some evil bigoted Christian then saw to it she was removed? There are WAY to many what ifs here people.

The original LA Times article doesn't add much more to the story:

No one in this thread even hinted at Hating....until you typed this Ustwo.
this actually seems a rather civil discussion on the perception garnered by the situation, and what bigotry may be evident in the descision. If possible.....It might be beneficial to the thread if you held back on the misconception that everyone here is Christian Bashing, and instead focused on the actual debate.

Just Sayin

It is easier to claim "Hatred" than to take a hard look at the belief structure of your religion. Nobody likes to hear they are being intolerant.

Ustwo does make a good point that we don't have the full picture. That said, if the young lady is a "trouble maker" she should be expelled based on this and not the fact that her parents are lesbians (which others have pointed out, is not addressed in the Bible only in their school policy).

Fortunately, it is not for you to decree what makes someone a Christian. I am not going to argue each of those points because the mere idea that you can remove their right to follow their faith because you disagree about interpretation shows you to be massively mistaken, militant, and dare I say mentally damaged. These people can practice their religion without seeking legitimacy from you.


You can Dare ......but I dont recommend direct insults to other members when you get back....in say...oh....three days

I fired a stupid and incompetent employee of mine the other week. It was a lot easier to fire her for being late repeatedly than for being crappy at her job. If she were good at her job I wouldn't have fired her for being late, the late part was an excuse and easy to document. If you have someone who always seems to be involved in problems, just barely stays in the school rules and pushes the limits constantly and then they basically offered you an excuse to get rid of her you take it. Now maybe the story plays out just like it sounds, but until then EVERYTHING in this thread is nothing but speculation and typical Christian bashing. Its fashionable for the left to bash Christians of course, and I'd be willing to wager this story gets more play in the press (if the facts measure up) then the two gay boys executed in Iran. I also doubt that if this school were a Jewish or Islamic school that it would get nearly the coverage.

I may no longer be a Christian, but its safe to say that Christians and white males are the two groups you are allowed to say bad things about and not get accused of being intolerant to some degree.

Homosexuality, the act, is as much a biological imperative for homosexuals as bedding every sorostitute is for the straight guy. Many religions, Christianity included, have no trouble restricting the sexual choices of straight people along with gay.


A matter of interpretation. I am not going to argue the point simply because it is not relevant to the discussion. This particular sect of Christianity has decided that God thinks homosexuality is wrong. They acted reasonably given those beliefs.

I do get your point, I just think they made a poor choice for their excuse. "Troublemaker" getting expelled is a lot less contentious then their choice.

I recognize the trend as well. However, I think I am fairly Universal in my examination of this sort of intolerence. I would be just as quick to condemn a homosexual school that banned straights.

The thing is, Christianity of this sort, seems to me to step away from what I see as the intention of Christianity and just use the religion as a prop for their personal intolerance. I take comfort in the fact that given enough time, this sort of intolerance will fade into the past like the nonsense it is.

I wonder at the source for this story. It originated with the LA Times and was picked up by AP. These are the only two sources so far and the AP story is based in the LA Times one. Given that the parents aren't going to appeal the decision I wonder who called the paper?

like I said, people are free to believe in what they want. But Mosiac law is rather clear (and I would add close to impossible for a modern person to follow) - if you use the Bible as your guide, that means you must follow the law.

If on the other hand, you choose to believe in the general truth of Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah as a God, pr Yeshua/Jesus/Isa as a prophet or God, without taking the bible literally... then thats fine and I wouldnt myself say it was an unreasonable world view at all. But it is a deviation from biblical law, and it is a deviation from what the bible says about Jesus.

Of course, we all, whether as a church or an individual have the power to do as Paul, and say "actually Jesus didnt mean these things which are written down" and claim to have developed a more true understanding through divine inspiration of some kind - whether this should properly be allowed to claim the title of the original religion, I am not sure. For myself, they can call themselves what they want - but it is rather confusing if so many people call themselves Christians and believe findamentally different things.

I guess the only part I do find rather hypocritical, and rather unworthy, is for an organisation to claim Leviticus as an inspiration for one thing (such as the discrimination against homosexuals), but to ignore other commands of the bible. I would find it hard to respect the opinion of someone who says homosexuality is wrong because the bible says so, but who eats pork, for example.

For myself, I eat pork, support people's right to chose whatever sexuality that they want, and do not believe homosexuals should be killed (as the law states) - but I still believe that Yeshua was a prophet (although I do think that Paul rather misrepresented him in the gospels) - and I dont call myself a Christian, but I probably believe in the same God that they do.... I just dont think that the Bible is the literal word of God. But the point is, if you ARE going to claim the Bible is the word of God, you have to follow it all, not just the parts that you like the look of.

In regards to this school, I would agree that the school officials should not face criminal charges in this case, however I think it would be appropriate for the state to withdraw any and all support to make it hard for this organisation to exist. They have the right to discriminate, and so do we. They may discriminate against a young girl because she has two mom's, and we may practice non-violent discrimination against them because we find these actions unacceptable.

This is just pure ignorance. You are equating promiscuity with being homosexual. That's as spurious as saying all black men have big dicks or all Asian men are really good at math.

The parents in question have been together for 22 years. Seems to me to be a stable family.

I don't disagree that they acted base on their beliefs. I just feel that their beliefs are at odds with laws of discrimination (the same law that would prevent them from keeping Blacks out of their school). Add to this, I feel their interpretation of Christianity is flawed. They are using the religion to support their own bias (a common practice)... were they to follow all of the Old Testament laws instead of just picking and chosing those that work for them, they would have to live a very different lifestlye.

Christianity while informed by the OT is not bound by the OT. Otherwise keep Kosher like a good othodox Jew.


(by the way, I will say it again: calling people mentally deranged and morons is not acceptable)

well, I suppose as the guy said to me, maybe that's the beauty of the cult of Jesus. Because so little of what he really said survives first hand - you can believe what you wish about him, and see "true Christianity" as representing the values that you hold to be true.

So I can choose to see Yeshua, a socialist and pacifist Rabbi, preaching equality, forbidding private property, and a mantra of love all the people

And someone with a different world view to me can see Jesus: a divine virgin of a virgin mother, forbidding divorce and immorality, saying he has come to reinforce the law of Moses.

And yes, of course its true that the story may be not as it is presented, but there are two debates. And the main one I think is "what is the opinion if these facts are true" and the second is "what is this situation here."

If you believe the school has acted acceptably in this report - then if it is not true it is a secondary issue - the main point is if you support the right for a school to practice this kind of discrimination.

I think age is definitely an issue in the way people see this. As I said, I posted the same link from Fark on a message board I go on that is a younger crowd... and everyone was united against the school. Here, where the group is more diverse, there are some people who support it. I think there are many issues in this that way that indicate a great divide, two America's.

How you want to characterise the divide is down to how you view society. I myself see it as a divide between those people who will make the revolution, and those who will resist it initially.

Here is the school's response to the dismissal, from their website:
http://www.ocschools.org/index.cfm
Thank you for your inquiry regarding a student that had been enrolled at Ontario Christian School. The student is not attending Ontario Christian, as the family does not meet admissions criteria. The ministry of Ontario Christian is to promote discipleship of Jesus Christ as defined by the Bible and consistent with historical Christianity. The school forms a voluntary partnership with parents who seek the same discipleship. Therefore, the school requires that at least one parent be a confessing Christian and active in the local Christian church. In this case, the parent does not meet the criteria by participating in a homosexual relationship. We regret that this relationship was not disclosed at the time of admission, as that information would have prevented enrollment and the occasion for misunderstanding. The mission of Ontario Christian School is to provide for the children of Christian parents a Biblically-based, quality education that nurtures students to grow in knowledge, conviction and maturity; therefore, our focus is to equip students with the vision and skills to engage all relationships and culture under the authority of Jesus Christ.

I guess you can retract that statement, aberkok...why don't you STFU!? The family was dishonest about their orientation.

Now that the plot has thickened I just want to say that I no longer disagree with the specific decision to remove the student, although it is not a kind decision. I still disagree with the overall policy and now we see how much they truly believe that what they are doing is "Christian."

Agreed. I propose a campaign to reverse the situations in which the Boy Scouts were not granted a lease for facilities because they're Christians.

I also propose that all non-Christians not be paid for the day if they don't work on Christmas.

/sarcasm

It seems that some people use Christian concepts and property when it's convenient for them.

What was this girl doing at the school? Were the public schools in the area of poor quality? Did her parents decide to accept just enough Christianity to work to their advantage?

I agree with ustwo--there's more to this story.

Sorry, when did Christ ever, in the Gospels, advocate exclusionary practices? When did Christ ever say, "No Homosexuals please". Any study I've ever made of Christ's teachings in the NT show a man that was accepting of all sorts of people.

Again, while I can't dispute their legal right as a private school, I can dispute their interpretation of the "authority of Jesus Christ."

I'd happily see all trappings of Christianity removed from our culture. Though I would argue that Christmas and Easter have been so thoroughly secularized you'd have a tough time removing them.

Like all non-Chistians I don't have a choice.


Are suggesting Homosexuals can't be Christians? That's what it sounds like. I agree there is likely more to the story.

My guess: some kids started making fun of her gay parents. She stood up to them. OR She was preaching the gospel of Homosexuality in the gym OR Her cheerleading cheer was, give me an L... give me an E... give me an S... give me a B... give me an I... give me an A... give me an N... What does that spell? My Two Moms! Yay!

It's very easy to dogpile a group that consistently demonstrates intolerance. I've never "hated" on a Christian that I knew could be tolerant of everyone else in society. That said, it's pretty obvious that I'd ordinarily use this as an ANOTHER example of Christian intolerance:

However -- I don't have a problem with this sort of policy. It's certainly bigoted, but we as a society allow this -- what kind of club would the Millionaire Club be if they let in people who weren't millionaires? What about MENSA, if they let in people who weren't smart enough? Exclusivity is part of making a group -- no one likes to have a dissenter in their midst.

The best you can do would be this, I think:

Of course, if you believe that Yahweh of the OT is the same entity as Jesus in the NT, and that the whole bible is the voice of God, then Jesus would have said everything the OT did (which includes recomending rape, pillage, murder, child sacrifice, etc etc... things most modern Christian's would not find palatable)


Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death."

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17)

I might be mistaken, but since when did being a Christian mean you accept all forms of 'sin'?

FORGIVENESS is a Christian montra, not tolerance of sin. If you are willingly committing a sin, it is NOT christian to accept it as OK. If you come seeking forgiveness, it is granted, but if you flaunt your sin then you are not ready for Christ.

The issue here has little to do with Christian intolerance of gays but more to do with some peoples intolerance of these Christians stance on homosexuality.

But Stange Famous... didn't Paul take the religion in a different direction. Didn't he teach that Christians don't have to hold to Jewish law?

I say again, Christians who would quote laws from the OT can't (or shouldn't) just pick and choose those laws that are most convenient to their world view. A true Christian should embrace Christ's teachings and if you read those words and actions he comes across as increasingly tolerant of many of those who are considered outcasts.

I wasn't being glib when I mentioned his admission of Levi the tax collector into his disciples. Tax collectors were high on the list of those to be despised under the existing Jewish customs of the time.

That sounds very Catholic but not neccessarily Christian. You first have to believe that an act of homosexuality is inherently sinful. 22 years sounds like a deeper commitment than most straigh marriages I know.

Yes, Paul was far more inclusive. The battle for the soul of the early church was between Paul and Jesus' brother ,James the Just. Paul was a modernizer, who sought to extend the chruch to the gentiles, and James was a zealot, xenophobic, known for his strict observance of the law. The thing is of course, we dont really know whether Jesus himself was more like James or Paul - since Paul won, he MADE the biblical Jesus like him.

And I absolutely agree, and this is what I was saying all along.

Utswo, if you want to follow the Mosaic law, if you want to use it as a guide to life - then fine... but the law is the law. You cannot pick which laws you obey. If you take Leviticus as your guide that homosexuality being wrong, then how can you eat pork?

As for the biblical Jesus himself, he had very little to say about sexuality at all, other than he disapproved of divorce.

So, are you saying that students whose parents sin will be expelled from Christian schools? Of course you're not, because that's ridiculous.

Coincidentally, I don't seem to recall any case in which a student at a Christian school was expelled because a parent violated one of the ten commandments. It seems Christians are particularly choosy about which of God's laws they want to enforce. Which brings up other interesting questions about whether Christians should be engaged in enforcing violations of God's laws.

Maybe these "Christians" had better review the Bible. Might want to start with the NT.

If you take the Catholic Church as a 'baseline' Christianity, you will find some splinter groups more conservative (a.k.a. old testament) and others more liberal (ignore the old testament) in their views on homosexuality. Obviously THESE Christians, and I have no idea what sect they come from, are of the old testament variety, which I'm sure you recall is a death penalty for male homosexuals and the destruction of a town by gods own hand.

Paul also writes on homosexuality (New Testament)

So it seems that perhaps even if you ignore the old testament there is no love for homosexuality in Christianity.

Now perhaps if by Christian you only look at Christs own words, then yes perhaps, you would be correct, but very few Christians ignore everyone but Jesus.

This is a rather simple case. The school's policy says that parents can't be homosexual. The girl violated the rules and was removed from the school. Whether Christianity is correct in condemning homesexuals is another topic of discussion. She broke the rules and suffered the consequences. There's no getting around Christianity's blatant disapproval of homosexuality...why such a big argument?

-Lasereth

As stated in the opening post....they (the school) have the right to set the standards. The discussion was never intended to debate this, Rather I was hoping to get opinions on exactly what everyone is "arguing" about, the perception of bigotry found in the action of the school, and how it ties into religious belief.

I would say its moving quite well actually....heh.

My view on homosexuality in general is that it's the human species' way of population control. The world is getting extremely crowded, so what better way to control it than a new type of humans that aren't interested in reproducing? I have nothing against homosexuals...I actually get quite angry when there is any hostility enacted against them. Our society needs to move beyond idiotic prejudices and accept people different than themselves. I don't see it happening since being gay is still considered an insult, even at my college university (there are quite a few people who are open to gay people here, but the fact that most people still say "that's gay" when referring to something they don't agree with sort of leads me to believe that they're still subconsciously homophobic).

-Lasereth

Some comments:

Re: Narrow-minded Christianity in California: Once you head about 50 miles inland from the coast, California is pretty much a different state from the one you see on TV. Of course, probably 2/3 the state population lives in that 50-mile strip. Geographically, the vast majority of California is moderate-to-far-right conservative.

Re: What kind of Christians would do this? Answer: Christianity, like most religions, can be bent to the culture of the country here that hosts it. Here in America we have a lot of people who think their personal beliefs deserve holy affirmation and yet don't examine their lives too much, want a God who will help them but not desire too much of them, and, wrapped in self-righteous armour, can then feel free to blame everyone but themselves for their problems and the problems of the world.

Guess what kind of Christianity these people like?

What I find interesting is that the family hasn't put up any public protest and simply enrolled in a public school. It "seems" like they are "ok" with it as they haven't put up any stink over it. There must be more to the story...

This isn't necessarily directed at you, jorge, but in general to those who say there must be more to the story.

Not everyone who is gay or lesbian is an activist just chomping at the bit waiting for something like this to occur so they can spring into action and demand everyone embrace their identity. It's quite possible that they just don't want to push the issue and it's also possible that they think - rightly so I might add - that their daughter would not receive kind treatment if she were to stay. It doesn't mean that their daughter was a trouble-maker, having lesbian sex in front of everyone, cursing at teachers, or any other tom-foolery which may lead to expulsion.

It states quite plainly that through the course of events, the superintendent found out her parents were lesbians and kicked her out. The course of events, if I understand them correctly, was that she was a cheerleader and got in trouble for talking to someone in the crowd during a football game. Her mother came in for a conference and it was then discovered that she was a lesbian.

I find it very difficult to defend a position that has for centuries engaged in exclusionary practices. I don't feel sorry for Christians who feel their feelings have been hurt because they live as bigots and don't like being called on it. Intolerance of intolerance is not ironic, it's not hypocritical, and it's not exclusive to any one particular ideology. Intolerance of intolerance is what helped bring about many of the great social changes in our history.

My comment to those who are riled up over what they perceive as Christian-bashing from those of us who don't appreciate bigoted Christians trying to shove their lifestyles down our throats (play on words intentional): Try practicing the teachings of your leader for a change. Christians and the white man are not victims of intolerance here. Stop trying to change the subject by pretending that you're now the persecuted ones.

considering i hear homosexuals use that phrase in the same way on a regular basis, gonna disagree with that comment. definitions of words change with time. gay and queer didn't have anything to do with homosexuality not so long ago. that the word gay is now moving away from primarily meaning homosexual (or its original definition) towards something different is hardly shocking or indicative of homophobia.

While I agree means do shift, I am not sure this the case in this instance.

"That's so gay" is not all that harmless when you drill down. If the utterance was an ironic play on the definition of "happy" I wouldn't have problem. The fact is, "gay" in this case, is a negative implication attached to someone being homosexual.

"You are so gay" is only used this way because it suggests that being gay or homosexual is somehow wrong or abhorent.

That meaning is still present. It is not dissimilar to a white guy saying to a black guy, "Yo nigger, what's up?" Don't be surprised if the black guy gets a little upset about your usage.

You are right about this but, what sort of changes in basic thought occur when words change meanings like this? 'Gay' originally meaning "lighthearted, merry, cheerful" comes to describe homosexuals, how? Men and women both may say the worst emotional pain they've felt comes at the hands of the opposite sex, perhaps viewing homosexuality as an escape from this, an elimination of the tension between the sexes, a resistance to suffering would result in a merry lighthearted existence. From what I've seen this is not the case for homosexual couples. Reguardless some may see things this way, seeing homosexuality as weakness itself because, as I've read, "life is pain, pain is knowledge, knowledge is life". The word having first only signified something a person views as weak and therefore disagreeable, comes to be a name for all things disagreeable, as it is our nature to generalize and simplify. Not all people who say 'thats gay' are homophobic, but the ignorance that would have to be among a majority to create such a change still exists.

*this is slightly off topic but I think still worth sharing :thumbsup:

I get up at about 5:30 each morning, have some tea, fix and have breakfast with my wife. I get dressed, usually in a nice suit (my workplace doesn't require professional dress, but it implicitly expected), and commute to work. I teach middle school for six hours, grade papers or go to meetings for another hour and a half. I commute home, stopping at the gym to exercise some nights, or jog around the track at home, relax with afternoon tea and prepare supper. I have supper with my family, the time varying depending upon when my spouse gets off of work. In the evening then relax, reading, watching tv, going to a movie, playing cards with my family. Once a week I meet with a few others like me and we discuss issues that are important to us. My family goes to an amusement part once or twice a month, and makes a trek across country most summers to visit the great Eastern parks. I make love to a beautiful woman about three times a week, more some weeks, less others. We don't have children, but plan to start trying in about a year's time. We tend to eat lean, lots of steamed rice and vegetables, a little lean meat, pasta, and fresh sliced fruits and veggies. We indulge in pizza or fried chicken once a week. I collect and read comic books, and run a small business related to that.

If you made it through all that without falling asleep, here's the point. That's my lifestyle. Though the particulars may change a bit, where you live, what kind of recreation you enjoy, that's not much different from a huge swath of Americans from all walks of life in monogamous relationships.

That is a homosexual lifestyle. I say "A" homosexual lifestyle pointedly here, and not "the" homosexual lifestyle, because there is no one lifestyle, no one way of living ones life, no one way of making choices about how to live one's life that defines the "homosexual lifestyle," any more than there is one "heterosexual lifestyle".

If you wanted to say I live a "nerd lifestyle," that'd be more meaningful than saying I live a "homosexual lifestyle".

The school, so long as they aren't recieving government funding of any kind in any measure, has the right to set their rules however they like and enforce them as they see fit.

Still, I think it's sad that an irrational predjudice leads them to punish a girl for her parents' status.

By the way, I'm not sure if anyone pointed out the obvious reason they'd send their daughter to a Christian school. Maybe they're Christians, and wanted a Christian education for their daughter, or their daughter is herself a practicing Christian, or both. Being homosexual and being Christian are not mutually exclusive conditions.

Gilda

No, it's more comparable to a Mormon that smokes and/or drinks. The individual engages in behavior contrary to church teachings, but (outside of some Muslim sects) violating some of the teachings is not normally grounds for some sort of "ban," or excommunication, or whatever.

As ustwo pointed out, homosexuality is not well-regarded in the Bible. That's not to say that homosexuals can't be likeable, contributing members of society, or live a life more moral than many who call themselves Christians. But Christian? In a denomination that emphasizes this portion of the Bible (and ALL Christian denominations emphasize their favorite portions to some degree) it's like saying a married man can be a Catholic priest. This married man could be a great deal more "holy" than some of the priests I read about, but that wouldn't make him a priest.

BTW, my statement about accepting "just enough Christianity" also applies to the other side of the coin--like most evangelists I can think of, for example. Or Teddy Kennedy, a "Catholic" who had a 30-year marriage "annulled." Wonder if his kids are retroactively illegitimate?

I don't agree with this guy often, but I'll give him a trophy for this one. The school's ideology and moral code may not match mine, but it's their right to have and enforce it. She'd probably be much better off at a different school anyway.

I'm still trying to understand when being a Christian meant being exclusionary. Current trends in our society have found it convenient to associate being a Christian with being a member of a particular denomination. I've always been of the understanding that being a Christian entailed following the teachings of Christ, not belonging to a church.

Claiming to be a Christian and actually practicing the teachings of Christ are two entirely different things. What boggles my mind is the vehemence with which we defend self-proclaimed Christians simply because they claim to be Christians while denouncing people who actually follow his teachings but don't wear their religion on their sleeves.

There are plenty of passages in the bible in which adultery is condoned by God yet we view it as immoral. In fact, if I understand correctly, there are more passages in which adultery is commited with the blessing of God than there are condemnations against homosexuality. Is this not a contradiction in our way of thinking?

Many private schools receive federal funding under the No Child Left Behind Act. If this particular school is receiving funds, then it is not their right to practice discrimination. If however, their funding is strictly through private means, then they are free to do as they choose. Hell, they can even teach that the sun revolves around the earth if they choose. Having the right to do something doesn't make what they do right.

Believe it or not, I will never support anyone's right to discriminate. I don't care if it's constitutionally guaranteed or not. Constitutional guarantees prevents me from stopping them, but I sure as hell don't have to support them. I will agree that they can do it, but I will never agree that it's okay.

Being gay and being christian do not go together. It's an oxymoron. That's the cold hard truth of the matter. Hurt feelings and societal pressures aside, I think the school is within their rights.

There are plenty of gay Christians. If you are a praciticing Christian, there are probably some that belong to your church. Being gay and being Christian isn't an oxymoron. Being intolerant and being Christian is an oxymoron.

I'm not intolerant at all. But a self-proclaimed christian who violates the guidelines of their own faith just equals a confused individual in my book.

Look at those in context, including verses 21-23, and it's clear they don't condemn homosexuality. These people were lapsed Christians who had made and animalistic idols. They engaged in sexual fertility rites--orgies--and idol worship, and for this were punished by God by making them go against their heterosexual desires and engage in sexual practices that they, being heterosexual, would find repulsive.

They weren't punished for being homosexual, they weren't, and they weren't punished for homosexual acts. The homosexual acts were the punishment, not the sin being punished.

I imagine that if these people had been homosexuals, forcing them into sex with the same sex would have been a remarkably ineffective form of retribution.

What about the "natural" part of it? These were heterosexuals forced to engage in homosexual acts, behavior that was against their nature. Homosexual acts wouldn't be unnatural for homosexuals.

These passages condemn sex orgies and idol worship in Pagan temples.

I've engage in a fair amount of homosexual sex in my time, but never as part of an idol-worshiping sex orgy in a pagan temple, so I'm pretty confident Romans 1:26-27 doesn't apply to me.

By the way, were the girl's mothers having idol-worshiping sex orgies in pagan temples?

Gilda

Nonsense. Not all Christains agree on all tenets of the the Christian faith. Not all Christians agree with all of the tenets of their own particular branch of the Christian faith. Some of us believe that homosexuality is not in conflict with the Bible. That's a difference of interpretation and opinion, not a factual difference. No one interpretatiion is "the cold hard truth of the matter".

Gilda

burned in their lust one toward another;

This doesn't sound like anyone was 'forced'. If the homosexual nature wasn't an issue, then why even bring it up?

Everyone loves twisting Paul around to their liking, but my reading would be that Paul doesn't consider homosexuality to be a natural state.

Mind you, I'm not agreeing with Paul, but we are talking Christian thought, and while I see nothing in Paul's writing which shows any sort of acceptance of 'natural' homosexuality, he does refer to is as

To me, that doesn't seem like anything BUT condemnation.

If someone wants to argue that Christians not accepting gays is wrong, thats fine, but I would argue that by Christian standards, homosexuality is 'offensive' to god, a sin.

The more amusing thing to me in all this is how many slightly different translations of Paul I found in looking this up. All were basicly the same but none agreed and the language used can make a difference in the meaning.

To me...this is the crux of this entire debate, interpretation. The Bibles themselves are translations of texts that have been changed and re interpreted over the last two thousand years, and in my opinion must be taken as such. Thus any interpretation is based on what a group or individual wishes them to say. If my version of the bible says homosexuality is fine, and someone elses claims it as sin.....who is right? And do I have the obligation to correct the other for what I see as an error in the interpretation?
If indeed I accept my version as truth....then I am virtually forced to see the other version as bigotted, and as a Christian stand up against the Judging nature of those who follow the other book.

Why would any gay person, even a Christian, send their kid to a school that hates gay people and will tell teh kids their parents are evil and twisted, regardless of what religion the school teaches?

This is the part I really, really don't get.

Ugh. Hates gay people?? Where in the article did they say they were kicking her out because they hate gay people? They disapprove of the LIFESTYLE and the RELATIONSHIP, not of the fact that shes gay. Why is this point so hard to understand for people.

I am in no way a practicing christian and dont have much use for organized religion. But I was raised as one. The level of ignorance as to their beleifs and practices displayed by people here is downright rediculous, even while they spew out vitriolous criticism.

But yea, I can see why they would want to send their daughter to a private school. They are widely regarded as better than the alternative in most cases.

Wow, I didn't know there were so many Christians out there without sin. That must give them a great deal of moral leverage.

This WILL NOT turn into a christian bashing thread....Period

Context. You can't pick one phrase out of a series of them and use it out of context. This occurs after God has arrived on the scene and changed their lust into that for the same sex. V. 29 repeats God's intervention.

That's true. Many Christians like to use this as a condemnation of all homosexuality, when at most it condemns homosexual acts committed in a pagan temple. It also condemns heterosexual acts back there in verse 24, before they started the homosexual stuff, so it appears it isn't the homosexuality that is the major problem here, but the pagan idol worshiping orgy.

My reading is that Paul doesn't like pagan idol worshipping orgies, and that homosexual acts are unnatural for heterosexuals.

Neither do I. Nor do I see a blanket condemnation of all homosexuality.

v. 24 happens before the homosexual sex begins. Since "their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:" in v. 26, the lust and impurity in v. 24 must refer to heterosexual sex. Verses 28 and 29 don't specify heterosexual or homosexual sex, but are a listing of other related sins committed. Oops, I was wrong there. v. 29 does specify "fornication" which is heterosexual sex. Not all heterosexual sex, but one specific kind. I think the passage as a whole does the same for homosexual sex.

Sure, but what is he condemning? Even if I accept your interpretation here, it seems to be a condemnation of a very specific set of circumstances, that of an idol worshiping orgy in pagan temple, not all homosexual acts anywhere.

Not all Christian groups, nor all Christians agree with this. There isn't any one Christian interpretaion of the Bible, or even an agreement on any one translation of the bible.

Can't disagree with that.

Gilda

Sorry, if you're saying you unwilling to educate a child because of who the parents sleep with, there is hate there. Or strong dislike, at any rate, and vigorous, deep disapproval of the parents at the very least. So again, why put your kids through that, to have them taught by "educators" that their parents are wrong/bad/messed up?

And I was raised Catholic.

Certainly no more than it has turned into a gay-bashing thread.

From reading the school's website it is apparent that they wish to have the parents very involved in the (religious) education process and by requiring them to be practicing Christians, they want them to be good examples.

I guess in their mind people engaged in homosexual activity are sinning and if they refuse to ask their Christian God for forgiveness and continue to sin then they are not practicing Christians and their children are not eligible for enrollment in their school.

I don't think they are necessarily bigoted as the OP suggests, they simply think that people engaged in sinful conduct and refuse to change are not practicing Christians and do not want their students to see this as an acceptable example of Christian living. I imagine many of the parents who send their children to the school feel the same way.

Many of us who are critical of their policy wonder why they don't open up their hearts to people with alternative lifestyles but to them it is sin, pure and simple. I imagine to the Christians making the school rules it is no different than someone who is a murderer and intends to continue murdering.

To me, it seems more a thread about tolerance and intolerance. It also seems a bit hypocritical to be intolerant of a religous group's intolerance.

So, we are supposed to accept intolerance, because being intolerant of intolerance is hypocritical? I'd imagine that sort of argument being used by some southerners in the 50's and 60's.

Actually it doesn't even seem to be that anymore. Its about demanding one group (Christians) to change their mind on 2000(5000+ if you count pre-Christian Jews) years of thought based on the sensibilities of the 1970's onward.

The "being intolerant against intolerance is intolerant" is becoming an argument of semantics. It is clouding the issue. It might help to think of it this way: How much intolerance is there in general and how can we minimize it?

This situation can be improved by reducing the overall level of intolerance...not by pitting one intolerance against another.

Besides, and I'll enter into this ridiculousness for a second, if we are tolerant of intolerance then the intolerance remains. How does condoning intolerance make us tolerant!!!????

So please stop saying it.

Christians have put aside many rules that were important (and so have many non-orthodox Jews). Why is this rule so important?

The only reason it is important is because it suits their needs in the here and now.

It is the doctrine of the school's Christians to be intolerant of sinners who refuse to ask their Christian God for forgiveness and intend to continue sinning. Even if they changed their doctrine to be tolerant of homosexuals there are probably many other human activities that they consider sinful that many of us do not.

Certainly we can tolerate the idea that they get to determine the rules to live by in their religion and run their school accordingly as long as they are not breaking the law. Their rules against homosexuality seem no more bigotted to me than similar rules against sex outside of marriage, coveting thy neighbor's ass, and the many other activities they may consider sinful.

Why is it so important to you that they change it because it suits your need in the here and now?

There are lots of things I do not like about Christianity, first and formost being that it turned the Western World into a death cult, with the focus on the afterlife rather than the present, but I don't expect them to change that anytime soon either.

I asked you first... :p

Besides it was a rhetorical question. I don't expect them to change. I just see it as convenient that they can choose to ignore some rules while embracing others... I don't think most Christians see this.

No, it's not. It's about recognizing intolerance for what it is. I'm all for Christians having the right to believe homosexuality is the mother of all sins (even murderers are ministered to, in prison). But, I also see nothing wrong with people outside that stream of thought recognizing the intolerance for what it is, and revealing it, and condemning it as such.

By your view then, we are all "intolerant" of murders, pedophiles, rapists, and thieves, correct? Because apparently, finding certain behaviors or lifestyles wrong and/or sinful is being "intolerant".

They have chose to set their level for what behavior is and is not sinful at a different point than you. It's not about being intolerant of "intolerance", you're (and many others) are being intolerant of another's belief system, which has deemed homosexuality a sin. So I hope you don't mind when people outside your stream of thought recognize your intolerance and hypocracy, reveal it, and condemn it as such.