School can expel lesbian students, court rules

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

And you got it.

ETA: This isn't the first time that you've seemed to be attempting snark with me on this board. But I just re-read my initial post to you and see that I didn't finish my sentence for some reason. Hmmmm...perhaps I was multi-tasking.

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?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't really recall attempting to "snark" with you.

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

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

[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.

[christiangirl]

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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

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?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

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.

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.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

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.

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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by christiangirl

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]

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.

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.

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.