School can expel lesbian students, court rules

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The precedent that it may set, however, is one that favors separation of church and state.

Exactly what I was thinking.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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

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...

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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?

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?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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."

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Point well taken. I assumed (and yes, I know what happens when one assumes ) that you were referring to the Judeo-Christian Scriptures in general, and perhaps to the specific passages in those Scriptures that deal with homosexual behavior, for three reasons. First, this post:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Second, in my experience (which may be limited in this regard), it is primarily Christians and Jews who refer to holy writings as "Scripture." (Okay, I've heard Hindus do it as well, but I was betting that wasn't applicable here.)

And third, in my experience (and see the disclaimer for point 2), it is mainly some Christians who refer to particular passages of the Bible as "scriptures" (rather than referring to the whole thing as "Scripture" and specific verses as "verses" or "passages of Scripture.")

From that assumption, I assumed you were referring to the various well-known verses on the subject. If my assumptions were incorrect and fulfilled the old adage on my part, my apologies.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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

When you said "The scriptures I am referring to are pretty clear in stating that homosexuality is a sin," you were responding to statement from DrPhil:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

"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.

My point was simply that Jesus made very clear that divorce and remarriage for any reason other than the adultry of the spouse were sinful. (Matthew 5:31-32 and Matthew 19:1-10.) Admittedly, he diverged from Mosaic law on this point. (Mark 10:1-5.) And this view, for the most part, held in the Christian world for centuries. But now, I'd hazard a guess that many if not most Christians do not view these verses as naming remarriage after divorce as sinful per se, despite their plain language.

Like DrPhil said, there is a long history of interpreting Scripture in different ways, so that what some see as clear, others see as not clear at all (or see clearly and differently).

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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?

BIBLE WARS!!!!

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

BIBLE WARS!!!!

2009! It's on like Donkey Kong!

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

2009! It's on like Donkey Kong!

Flinging the New Testament at yo' haid!!!!!

STOP DUCKING!!!

[AGDee]

The way I see it, private schools can kick anybody out that they want for any reason that they want. That's the luxury of being a private school. If you don't like it, don't go there.

[KSig RC]

Mods plz change thread title to "Even Activist Circuits Can't Fuck This One Up, Court Rules" - thanks!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And?

So what?

DUH. Scriptures are subjective to a great extent. People pick and choose which ones they want to quote to prove whatever point they want to make. They want to win the Scripturrrrrrrrrrre Warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs. DUH.

Here we go again.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

BIBLE WARS!!!!

lmao

Bring it...

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

2009! It's on like Donkey Kong!

That's racist.

[agzg]

Beware of my flying Bible of POWERRRRRRRRRRRR!