This kind of stuff demonstrates particularly kind of irony. One usually can't aspire to pull off "holier than thou" better than traditional religious leaders, and yet, people criticizing traditional religious leaders in this fashion are REALLY trying.

Am I the only one who found the above mention of chaos in response to Dr.Phil a LOL moment? I guess so.

I disagree with the rule. I think its discriminatory. If a school took the Bible and declared that the Bible says it is not okay to be black or mixed (and included teaching their kids in a religious environment safe from blacks as a part of its mission) the school could then expel students for being black. My general rule is that if it does not work with race then it shouldnt work with sexuality. With only a few exceptions one being in the actual church.

Selective universities are discriminatory.

In most cases, being discriminatory is a good thing. It allows an entity to weed out undesirable candidates. How is that a bad thing? By expressing their sexuality in an undesirable manner, these kids became undesirable to the school. Why force a private religious institution to teach students which, in its opinion, offend its moral code?

Selection based on merit is not the same as discrimination based on intangible criteria.

The difference with this example is that in the Bible homosexuality is clearly listed as a sin. Being black or mixed is NOT listed as a sin. So if they came up with such a rule, it would be clear that it was based more on discrimination and not religious doctrine.
:)

Not all Christian religions think the Bible is the sole source of religious dogma.

I don't really recall attempting to "snark" with you. I think that because YOU are always trying to "snark" with other people that you are just paranoid about it.

And which sentence did you fail to finish?

No, but since I.A.S.K referred to the Bible, my response also referred to the Bible.

Are you saying intangible criteria have no place in the admissions/selection process? Are you saying sexuality is an intangible criterion?

You don't have to recall it for it to exist. ;)

So, if they created their own version of the bible or created their own religious document its okay. If they chose they could use parts of the Bibile to "justify" discrimination against black or mixed people especially if that was an integral part of their religious teaching. There are plenty of things in the Bible not explicitly stated that are considered sins. There are other things that are stated that are not considered sins. If they came up with such a rule it would not necessarily be clear that it is discrimination.

Thanks.

Yes. Yes. If there is no way to evaluate or measure it then why consider it?

Actually being able to recall it is the first step in verifying it's existence. As I said before, I think you're just paranoid.

This isn't a point of debate. It is a difference in perception, which snark often is.

"Clearly listed as a sin" is very subjective because Scriptures can be interpreted differently. Some Scriptures seem more straightforward than others but many Christians pick and choose which Scriptures to interpreted verbatum and which to "spin" to suit whatever cultural norms, practices, and agendas.

I don't like the rule and it should've been more clear in that article (what exactly does "characteristic of a lesbian relationship" mean? Were they hugging or holding hands (which friends do sometimes)? Or making out under the bleachers?) but even I have to admit the school was in their right to make it. This reminds me a bit of reverse discrimination in the legal realm. Everyone's constantly b*tching about how the church and state should separate because moral/religious values have no place in legislative matters. Well, now a private, religious school has done what they felt is necessary to protect the sanctity of their ways and what happened? People ran to get the law involved. So it's okay to keep the two separate if legal rights are being protected, but if officials attempt to exercise their right to uphold the standards of their "religious institution" then the two should be mixed? The deciding factor should be the institution backing the school--if it were a government-run (public) school it'd be one thing, but if the Church is the governing body then the law has no place in their proceedings unless fundamental human rights were being violated.

I'm not saying that I agree with what this school did and it used to piss me off when my (Catholic) high school would pull this mess on students. If anything, I would prefer to see a ban PDA for ALL students so that sexuality wouldn't be an issue. But no matter how I feel about the policy, I don't like the double standard stated above.

Before anyone asks:

Genesis 19:1-13

Leviticus 18:22

1 Corinthians 6:9

Romans 1:26-27

for starters

........and who wrote the Bible? ;)

"Divinely inspired" men and women who were (potentially) influenced by the social norms of their time. :)

It depends on what you do or dont consider a human right. If you consider it a right to pursue happiness then you could say the students had their rights violated. I do not believe that it is within the rights of a school to deny students the best possible education because of their sexual orientation, race, or gender.
The seperation of Church and state prevents one group (church) from forcing their beliefs on others. In the same token the others (state) do not attempt to regulate the beliefs of the church. I do not believe that seperation means that the church is above the law. The church must abide by the law of the land just like the others. There's no double standard. The law happened to be that discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal (as it should be). As such they took the matter to court.

You're right, it depends. Do these two girls define happiness as being able to express their sexuality without fear of reprimand? That's reasonable unless the way they were expressing it was by feeling each other up. There is a way to express oneself appropriately on school grounds. Because the article is not clear what the so-called "lesbian characteristics" are, it'll remain speculation whether their behavior was questionable or actually against "reasonable" school policy. note:I'm not actually being that facetious, but I can just imagine that point being raised by somebody.[/QUOTE]

Why the difference in wording? This separation keeps the Church from "forcing" their beliefs on others, meanwhile the state only "regulates?" It would seem to me that bringing the law into proceedings like this is "forcing" the beliefs of the government (and outside citizens/voters by extension) on the church by telling them what rules they can or cannot set forth. That sort of regulation would be necessary if the Church was actually infringing on others rights, but then that leads us back to the definition guessing game. Most of this thing is guesswork: what the girls actually did, whether they were warned or just expelled suddenly, what the school policy actually says, etc.

[/quote]

From the article it appeared that the school used an interrogation, a student overhearing them say I love you, and their myspace pages to determine that they were lesbians. They did not seem do anything at school (besides say "I love you" because before a student overheard this there was no issue with the girls. And I think that if they'd been feeling each other up there would have been plenty of people to say something) that was grossly inappropriate. As such they seem to have been expelled because of their sexual orientation.

The history behind the rule is that the church used to force its beliefs on the people in Britian through the regulation of the state. Since the duty of the state is to regulate I used the term regulate. You can say they both force. I chose not to use that term because force to me signals something that is unnecessary because it doesnt infringe on any rights whereas regulation to me signals that the action is necessary because there is a right being violated. In this situation I'm inclined to believe that the student's rights were violated.

See, schools should have juridiction over what happens on school grounds, IMO. What's on a Myspace page of a minor should be monitored by his or her PARENT (though that's for another debate). What someone "heard" one of the girls say is just that, hearsay, and not even bad hearsay at that. (I tell everyone I love them!!!) In this case, the school's actions seem unfair to me. I still can't say anything about the rules they set forth, but they should at least be enforced with fairness. I guess the issue I have (lol among others) is the law regulating (read: interferring with) the setting of rules established by the Church meant for their own. Now, the enforcement of said rules does need governance, I'll admit that. It's when the two are confused that the trouble starts.

It's dumb because it's based on the bible.

See, others can be bigots too. Not just you.

I'm not a bigot. ;)

As for it being "dumb because it's based on the Bible," you should be very careful saying things like that.

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Whether it is or not, before you call someone else out on being snarky, you should do some internal evaluations. You are consistently snarky in your posts. So if someone dishes it right back at you...so what? Suck it up and move on.

The scriptures I am referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexuality is a sin.

No, they're not really. I would concede that the passages you're referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexual behavior is sinful. Not the same thing.

Now, remind me what the Bible says about remarriage after divorce?

Considering that not everyone believes in the bible, you can only use it as a source of morality amongst those that do believe. Others can ignore it all they want!

No shit. ;)

Don't pretend you aren't. :) The End.

Along with what MysticCat said, Christians often pick and choose which Scriptures to refer to when they want to defend whatever they want to defend.

People can interpret Christianity however they choose but my Christianity doesn't require what I call "Scripture Battles."

The heresy of one age becomes the orthodoxy of the next.

Helen Keller

And that's how I believe a lot of religious tenets (in all religions) originated.

This doesn't remove the validity of faith and spirituality but, for me, it highlights the real meaning of Christianity and the Bible as an historical document and perspective.

Agreed...the Bible is subject to interpretation.

Still have to love the fact there really is no such thing as separation between church and state.

What do you mean by this? I'll admit, I haven't read the entire thread (I'm sure you can guess why) but wasn't the school a private catholic school?

That simply no matter how much the US tries to separate law and morality,(religion) some of what these types of decisions are based on what our moral standards are.


That is just my personal belief.

Think...what is law based on anyway? To some degree, laws are based on whatever the moral code of that time just so happens to be.

When you think about it, 30 or 40 years ago, there simply would not have been a case, they would have been expelled and that would have been the end of it.

100 to 200 years ago, they may have been killed and it would have been justified.



I sometimes think that it's almost impossible to not be biased one way or another on legal issues where morality, religion, and people's perceived rights cross paths.

Ok... I don't really agree with you. Separation of church and state isn't so much to set up laws completely void of moral values but to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. There's going to be overrun, however, between both because obviously to a huge part of the population, religion is incredibly important (no matter the religion).

I'd say that since we don't yet have a state-run church and we don't have a state that is run by the church, the idea has been fairly successful.

I think morality will always play a part in lawmaking, it just depends what type of morals you prescribe to. We'll always have laws that prohibit things just because they're wrong (malum in se, I think, things like murder) and we'll have laws that prohibit things that aren't necessarily morally wrong (malum prohibitum, things like parking on the wrong side of the street).

That's not to say that morals don't change, but I'm just saying that you don't need to have religion to have a strong set of morals.

ETA: I'm not trying to change your personal belief, just state my own.

Thta's cool and some of your points I agree with.

No probs here.

I guess the overall arc for me is that we live in a society that in some ways are more tolerant of behaviors and mores (and not just this case either) that would have been condemnable many many years ago. So it's sometimes interesting to see how the more things 'change' the more things stay the same.

This case in particular is going to set a precedence considering also this is coming from the same state that shot down Prop 8 just a few short months ago.

It will be interesting to see how similar cases will stack up.

The precedent that it may set, however, is one that favors separation of church and state. This was a private, church-related school. The decision, as best I can tell and to the degree that church and state enter into it, supports the idea that the state cannot make the church accept something that violates church doctrine, even if society on the whole thinks what the school is doing is bad. (From the article linked in the OP, it appears that the legal issue turned on whether a private, church-related school is a "business" within the meaning of California non-discrimination laws. I have little doubt, though, that the church-state seperation argument was made.)

And California did not shoot down Proposition 8; California voters approved it.

Exactly what I was thinking.



That's what I meant, my bad for that one.

You know what I was thinking about....the MINORITIES that were counted that voted against it...

With respect to your first statement I am interested to know how you arrived at that conclusion since I never listed the scriptures I was referring to.

With respect to the second statement...how is that relevant?

And? I think everyone knows that you have people who pick and choose certain scriptures in an effort to defend their point. So what? That's nothing new that we didn't already know.

As for scripture battles, is anyone actually trying to engage in scripture battles on here?