So there’s this kerfluffle surrounding a Christian school that decided to ban from the school’s graduation ceremony a teen who by all accounts, was a model student, positive leader, active church and community participant and role-model, and countless other accolades, but who apparently was “immoral” and got pregnant.
My question is, what is the point of God (or really any god) to people who feel they need to act on behalf of said God and punish people for acts that are immoral by said supposed God’s standards? Note, we’re not talking about punishing someone for a legal infraction; the principal in the case has been quite clear that the teen is being punished for being immoral. So I’m curious as to what such folks believe God’s role is or whether such folks believe God even has a role or does anything?
Just like being devil’s advocate. Should Jews And Muslims be required to serve pork in their groceries and restaurants? Or vegans meat?
I once hosted a couple of Egyptian kids for an exchange program. When asked if there was some special food they wanted, they asked for pizza with tuna. So I found myself in Dominoes with a a can of tuna, asking them to add it to a pizza. Which they did.
But suppose I went to a Muslim pizza restaurant and asked them to add pork sausage?
I’m not sure that’s a good example. Not selling wedding cakes to homosexuals would be more like a Muslim pizza restaurant refusing to sell pizzas to Christians. No one is asking anyone to sell something they wouldn’t normally sell, it’s the discriminating certain groups based on prejudice what’s wrong
So there’s this kerfluffle surrounding a Christian school that decided to ban from the school’s graduation ceremony a teen who by all accounts, was a model student, positive leader, active church and community participant and role-model, and countless other accolades, but who apparently was “immoral” and got pregnant.
If a public school had a policy that religious symbols were not to be worn during graduation ceremony but one student refused to abide would banning that student from the ceremony create simmilar kerfuffle?
My question is, what is the point of God (or really any god) to people who feel they need to act on behalf of said God and punish people for acts that are immoral by said supposed God’s standards? Note, we’re not talking about punishing someone for a legal infraction; the principal in the case has been quite clear that the teen is being punished for being immoral. So I’m curious as to what such folks believe God’s role is or whether such folks believe God even has a role or does anything?
While I don’t agree with the government funded religious schools, I agree that they have the right to set certain standards, just like public schools have regarding no prayers, no religious symbols to be worn, otherwise what’s the point of religious schools if they are no different than public schools?
Do atheists need God more than theists?
I don’t recall anyone refusing to sell wedding cakes to anyone. Perhaps they refused to sell a wedding cake with pork sausage on top.
I’m not terribly confused about what bigotry is. I’m just confused by self righteousness with regard to whether laws should be enforced or not. My perception is that we all tend to want laws we agree with enforced against people we disagree with. And laws we disagree with ignored. I can’t really exclude myself from this set.
What I don’t understand is how intelligent people fail to see this.
Nope but they are required by public accommodation laws not to discriminate against certain classes of people in serving what is on the menu.
Nice of them.
You are asking for special consideration, it would be up to the owners to decide to grant it. You have a right not to be discriminated against for certain criteria. You do not have the right to order things not on the menu
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/
Yes. And the courts would support that student on the basis of the first amendment “free exercise” clause.
Robert Byers says,
Oh I see, you’d be perfectly fine with the passage of LAWS that required punishment for opposition to homosexuality, you just don’t like such opposition when it’s not as a result of such laws.
Well, that’s utterly ridiculous, and I don’t believe you at all, but I’m sure some jurisdictions would be happy to comply with your wishes on this matter if I’m wrong and you’re actually sincere.
Byers thinks that in a normal and healthy civilization, it would be illegal to be gay or lesbian. He thinks that the real injustice comes when actively voicing opposition to LGBT+ persons is classified as “hate speech”.
Given that we already know that Byers is anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and misogynistic, it’s no surprise that he’s homophobic as well. He’d fit in perfectly in Putin’s Russia or Trump’s America.
” Under the Tinker standard, students have the right to freedom of expression as long as they do not “materially and substantially” disrupt the operation of the school or violate the rights of others. Chapter 71, section 82 of the Massachusetts General Laws (the Student Free Expression Act) puts this standard into state law. It reads:
The right of students to freedom of expression in the public schools of the commonwealth shall not be abridged, provided that such right shall not cause any disruption or disorder within the school. Freedom of expression shall include, without limitation, the rights and responsibilities of students, collectively and individually (a) to express their views through speech and symbols, (b) to write, publish and disseminate their views, (c) to assemble peaceably on school property for the purpose of expressing their opinions.”
The examples are everywhere. Opposition to homosexuality, by words or deeds, is punished.
Laws against discrimination are laqws against opposition to complying with what is seen as evil and repulsive and unnatural and unhealthy.0
Discrimination is only wrong if its been decide by the people or some higher power that one ios not to do it.
Discrimination as a word for people to obey to not reject things is silly.
,
Thats two issues.
Yes it must come from the laws because they come from the people. the peopoles right to govern themselves, including imposing on a minority/or majority by law, is the essence of natural freedom and Anglo-american governments.
Instead a passion for causes, like the the gay one, in the establishment, and some of the public, brings punishment(often greater then jailtime/fines) to conclusions they have determined on.
What if they made laws to punish opposition to homosexuality(practically do in Canada) ??
Well unless one has a greater natural law, or some law existing, then one would have to obey however evil.
However natural, religious contracts/free conscience/free speech, should make any such law illegal in a citizenry watching its rights.
Hmmm…You know , there are other civilized societies in the world other than U.S. and its constitution… France for example… It’s very likely the incident I describe could have easily happened there…as no religious symbols are NOT to be worn and displayed in public schools by students…
Yes homosexuality should be illegal in healthy society. however enforcing it is difficult. anyways in our civilization we have a contract to allow people freedom on these things, wher not interfering with the rest.
Everybody is content with that contract.
However opposition to the gay stuff is attacked in everryway and it is , as a moral right and good thing, imposed on the nations by a immoral, illegal establishment working with passionate activists. At the moment.
I am not antisemetic, anti-islamic, or anti -women. thats a false accusation and shouldn’
t be made here. its immoral and stupid.
Its just tagging people with different conclusions..
In fact you make the case here on this thread.
Opposition to homosexuality is homophobic, which is a term invented to portray people, who oppose the gay thing, as evil, bad, or breaking historic/modern contracts on human relationships.
Accusation is not indictment but in present society punishment is done without trial. this because its outside the law which comes from centuries of struggle to bring justice to the accused or accuser.
Sometimes bad people make evil accusations.
This mIGHT be an example however it requires trial.
Really it should be that if these are important accusations they shouldn’t be made so easily without evidence or really at all.
Its unjust, unkind, stupid and does not intimidate people into silence or obediance IF thats the real agenda. Not truth and love.
Agreed. However, the context suggested that this was about US schools.
Unbelievable! Mung can’t answer the question I posed so he tries to deflect to his own personal issues with the moderation of this site.
Oh for goodness sake, Mung. Can you at least try to get close to the point I was making? The issue at the Christian school is merely an illustration of the behavior.
The fact of the matter is, the girl being banned from her graduation is irrelevant to the actual point (which you can’t seem to address.) Private schools are well within their right to make rules about conduct and enforce them. Big whoop. But in this case, the entire school is based on the belief and God and even claims that they adhere to God’s rules. Well, if that’s the case, why don’t they believe that God enforces those rules? Maybe because they don’t actually believe in said God.
So whatcha think Mung? Bunch of hypocrites or actually faithful followers? I’m kind of interested in any explanation for the latter.
Wouldn’t know. Since this isn’t an OP about how immoral the teen was treated or anything like that, I’m at a loss as to what point you’re even attempting to make though.
Ok…so it appears that my actual OP has not yet been addressed. Let’s try this again.
The point I’m raising is in the title of the OP: what do people think that God’s role is supposed to be in this scenario. I’ll note that although this is a Christian school and (as the administration has insisted) that this whole kerfluffle is supposedly about a moral issue, “God” has not come up in any of the discussions, interviews, or releases I’ve heard or read. Why? Does the school believe that this has nothing to do with God? Do they not actually believe in God? Do they believe God gave them the authority to act on His behalf and if so, is there any support for such an assertion?
That’s my actual point.
I prefer the original.
How can you frame the question without seeing the answer? The point of God for cruel people is to deny that they are cruel. They also develop elaborate explanations of why Jesus’ teachings don’t mean what they obviously mean (e.g., “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her”), and of how they know which of the ancient Hebrew laws remain in force today.
For anyone on here with a little more knowledge of Plantinga’s drivel than I have, how does any action taken in God’s name against another individual not constitute an assault on the free will of said individual which is a cornerstone of his defense against the Problem of Evil?
Yes, of course I’m being rhetorical here. It’s interesting to me that folks like Mung, Erik, and Phoodoo didn’t even attempt to address the issue however.
Ooo…good point. Hope someone addresses it.
Depends on what the deeds are
You are not forced to be gay on the other hand you are trying to force someone to be straight. Too bad you can’t force others to abide by your beliefs.
Like do unto others ?
You seem to be upset that someone is discriminating against you for your discrimination. Sorry about your bad luck.
It is an administrative issue for the school, she broke the honor code of remaining chaste. No one is debating whether the private school has that right to require certain behaviors from its students. The students agree to abide by those rules.
Students are disciplined in public schools without the mention of a deity.
Everyone accepts the pledge is valid even the girl. She is basically asking for a special consideration for doing the ” right ” thing
That belief is the basis for her appeal for special consideration.Preserving the life the baby tips the scales of justice in her favor.
The only authority necessary flows from school and state board of education, God does not set the requirements for graduation from high school.
Her father until he resigned was on the Board of the School which one would guess had some input to the school policy. I wonder if other kids have been denied graduation during his time on the Board for breaking the pledge of chastity.
I agree with this point for the most part. However, my question is aimed at the basis of the school’s honor code. If the school were to say, “this is our honor code based on our personal perspective”, I’d not have raised the issue at all. But the school instead says, “this is our honor code based on God’s Absolute Moral Code”. Now, that doesn’t change whether they are within their rights and all that in administering whatever punishment they see fit under their code. I’m just curious as to whether such folk think God has any ultimate input given that He allegedly is the author and administrator of said code.
Yep. Absolutely. And my question isn’t about the school’s rights to administer discipline under their code. The banning of the teen from graduation is not the point of my OP; whether the folks behind the honor code believe God has any involvement in the issue is.
Yeah, and I believe there was some question as to what the code actually spelled out in terms of the specific discipline. But whatever, that’s not what I’m interested in about this case.
Could be, but I have no idea.
Quite so. But apparently, at least according to the principal, He did set the basis of the honor code.
Interesting. I didn’t know that.
Here is the explanation posted on the Hertitage Academy site
http://heritage-academy.net/principle-hobbs-response-to-media-coverage-of-policy/
And here is part of the pledge:
“As a student, I pledge to consistently do my best to abide by the guidelines contained in the Handbook as well as the expectations conveyed to me by school personnel. Expectations for students include guarding my mind against immorality, impurity, rebellion, selfishness, carnality and violence (principles conveyed in Philippians 4:8 – …whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.) and applying this to that which I say, read, watch, attend, hear, promote, and/or approve. This application extends to my actions, such as protecting my body by abstaining from sexual immorality and from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs. In addition, I recognize and am committed to nurturing my spirit by associating with people of high moral character and conduct, cooperating respectfully with those in authority, striving for excellence as a student, refraining from gossip, grumbling and complaining, and avoiding the appearance of evil.”
It seems to me the answer to your question is yes.
Jimmy Swaggart?
What public schools don’t allow the students to pray or wear religious symbols? It is only the school itself that cannot lead prayers or display religious symbols. And even the latter is not true. They will often display the different religious symbols as part of education.
Precisely the way I read the code too. But oddly, the school administrators’ behavior seems to contradict this. Let’s face it, it’s not like I really expect such folk to actually be consistent with the premise of such a code; I’ve not encountered that many people who are confident that God will administer sufficient judgement/punishment/justice/etc such that they feel comfortable stepping aware from the job. Pretty much all religious institutions feel that they HAVE to administer various punishments to the “wicked”, but I’ve never heard a logical explanation for why. So, the point of my post was to explore what I think is the actual reason. Maybe such folks really are embracing such religious principles to justify busybodyness and control of others’ behavior? I tend to think that’s a reasonable explanation. But, I wanted to see if anyone had any other explanations.