lesbians need not apply

[DisneyBamaFan]

...I'll be interested to see if the "Doe girls" take this any further and how it's handled at a higher court.

Things like this (mostly racist policies) have already been tested in the SC. I doubt they would even hear the case...

 

[Axel]

Ok. So for all the argument about how there are quotes not only from the old, but the new testament refering to the "sin" of homosexuality (or the practice of homosexual acts), what about the other new testament verses? Do they not allow women to teach?

1 Timothy 2:12

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Why bother teaching girls at all?! If it's in the Bible, shouldn't they be following this rule?


And I can say that at my school (even though it's public) the gay students still take the worst of it. A couple girls kiss each other goodbye in the hallway- they get a detention. A hetero couple full-on makes out in the hallway and teachers roll their eyes and walk on past. I've pointed out these discrepencies and nothing has been done.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Ok. So for all the argument about how there are quotes not only from the old, but the new testament refering to the "sin" of homosexuality (or the practice of homosexual acts), what about the other new testament verses? Do they not allow women to teach?



Why bother teaching girls at all?! If it's in the Bible, shouldn't they be following this rule?


And I can say that at my school (even though it's public) the gay students still take the worst of it. A couple girls kiss each other goodbye in the hallway- they get a detention. A hetero couple full-on makes out in the hallway and teachers roll their eyes and walk on past. I've pointed out these discrepencies and nothing has been done.

Uh oh, sounds like just some verses 'n teachin's are important 'n others aren't.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I can't figure out why churches wanna have schools, hospitals 'n adoption agencies anyway, how
come they get to run businesses, but they don't have to follow the laws that govern businesses?

 

[Castlebound]

Ok. So for all the argument about how there are quotes not only from the old, but the new testament refering to the "sin" of homosexuality (or the practice of homosexual acts), what about the other new testament verses? Do they not allow women to teach?



Why bother teaching girls at all?! If it's in the Bible, shouldn't they be following this rule?


And I can say that at my school (even though it's public) the gay students still take the worst of it. A couple girls kiss each other goodbye in the hallway- they get a detention. A hetero couple full-on makes out in the hallway and teachers roll their eyes and walk on past. I've pointed out these discrepencies and nothing has been done.

Don't try to talk about how people follow the bible inconsistently. I pointed out on another thread that there are many outdated views in the bible that we no longer follow, and that maybe the bible's view on homosexuality was yet another outdated view. There was no response except to tell me that the old testament doesn't count.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Don't try to talk about how people follow the bible inconsistently. I pointed out on another thread that there are many outdated views in the bible that we no longer follow, and that maybe the bible's view on homosexuality was yet another outdated view. There was no response except to tell me that the old testament doesn't count.

Point me to a rule about shellfish or mixed fabric in the NT and I'll address it.

 

[Castlebound]

Point me to a rule about shellfish or mixed fabric in the NT and I'll address it.

I guess I will repeat what was already stated. An example of an outdated view in the new testament of the bible that we don't follow anymore.

1 Timothy 2:12

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I guess I will repeat what was already stated. An example of an outdated view in the new testament of the bible that we don't follow anymore.

1 Timothy 2:12

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

The entire passage that this verse comes from is a discussion of how worship should be conducted. Prior to this verse, Paul talks about how prayers at worship are to be offered for everyone-as the practice of the time was not to extend prayers for those outside the immediate community. Paul also talks about how men should lift their hands in prayer without anger or argument and that a woman should dress modestly and her good deeds should be her adornment. In the verse you quote Paul clearly says "I" suffer not a woman to teach. These are not the words of Jesus and while they should be considered seriously, they are not at the level of a command. In many churches, temples and mosques, women are not permitted to teach or to lead services in any way-so those rules are still followed and are not considered outdated to many believers.

 

[Goofyluver]

Apparently they are against violating their code of conduct, which applies to everyone equally.

Having read the case, this is a far more conservative school than the ones I attended or the one I taught in-but the Constitution still applies to them.

I'll be interested to see if the "Doe girls" take this any further and how it's handled at a higher court.

Is it equal when only homosexuals are expelled for their sexuality?

I'll be interested as well. Here's hopin' the day comes when discrimination against gays and lesbians is tantamount (in legal status) to other forms of discrimination in our country.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Is it equal when only homosexuals are expelled for their sexuality?

I'll be interested as well. Here's hopin' the day comes when discrimination against gays and lesbians is tantamount (in legal status) to other forms of discrimination in our country.

But we don't know that only homosexuals were expelled for their sexual activity. We're just assuming that. The case reads pretty clearly-it was when they confirmed the relationship and the activity that the expulsion took place. It may be that hetero students were expelled for sexual activity as well, and didn't sue. We just don't know.

 

[Sorsha]

The entire passage that this verse comes from is a discussion of how worship should be conducted. Prior to this verse, Paul talks about how prayers at worship are to be offered for everyone-as the practice of the time was not to extend prayers for those outside the immediate community. Paul also talks about how men should lift their hands in prayer without anger or argument and that a woman should dress modestly and her good deeds should be her adornment. In the verse you quote Paul clearly says "I" suffer not a woman to teach. These are not the words of Jesus and while they should be considered seriously, they are not at the level of a command. In many churches, temples and mosques, women are not permitted to teach or to lead services in any way-so those rules are still followed and are not considered outdated to many believers.

Even when I was very religious and a faithful churchgoer, I always thought Paul was A Horse's Patootie. Pretty much if he said I had to do something, my gut instinct was to do the opposite.
IMHO, more damage has been done to females through the ages in the name of Paul then for just about any other reason.

 

[Goofyluver]

But we don't know that only homosexuals were expelled for their sexual activity. We're just assuming that. The case reads pretty clearly-it was when they confirmed the relationship and the activity that the expulsion took place. It may be that hetero students were expelled for sexual activity as well, and didn't sue. We just don't know.

I'm wondering if the pastor pulls all students into his office and asks them about their "sexual activity" with other students?

The students weren't expelled for "sexual activity". Hence the legal ruling. They were expelled for being lesbians. "Allegedly".

 

[mkingdomlvr]

I'm wondering if the pastor pulls all students into his office and asks them about their "sexual activity" with other students?

The students weren't expelled for "sexual activity". Hence the legal ruling. They were expelled for being lesbians. "Allegedly".

I'm sure he does if the same type of information is given to him. There was a concern, there was evidence that a relationship existed and when he asked them point blank-they said that they were in a relationship and had acted on it. If you take out "mary" and "jane" and you put in "mary" and "joe" the same violation of the code of conduct exists. According to the decision: "Its “Christian Conduct” rule provided that a
student could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, whether on or off campus."

It doesn't say only homosexual immoral or scandalous conduct. I would imagine that code would include sex outside of marriage, pregnancy, drug use, alcohol use and any number of behaviors that the school would consider immoral regardless of the sexual orientation of the student engaging in it.

 

[jimmiej]

Even when I was very religious and a faithful churchgoer, I always thought Paul was A Horse's Patootie. Pretty much if he said I had to do something, my gut instinct was to do the opposite.
IMHO, more damage has been done to females through the ages in the name of Paul then for just about any other reason.

Here's what Jesus had to say about (and to) Paul:

Acts 9:15-16

15"This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Acts 18

9One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.

 

[Sorsha]

Here's what Jesus had to say about (and to) Paul:

Acts 9:15-16

15"This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. 16I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Acts 18

9One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: "Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.

That may be.
BUT since I personally don't believe that a god wrote the bible, AND since I believe the authors of the books had their own agendas, AND since Paul wrote his own books and was free to say whetever he wanted regardless of truth - that leaves me free to still believe that he was a PooPooHead.

 

[Goofyluver]

I'm sure he does if the same type of information is given to him. There was a concern, there was evidence that a relationship existed and when he asked them point blank-they said that they were in a relationship and had acted on it. If you take out "mary" and "jane" and you put in "mary" and "joe" the same violation of the code of conduct exists. According to the decision: "Its “Christian Conduct” rule provided that a
student could be expelled for engaging in immoral or scandalous conduct, whether on or off campus."

It doesn't say only homosexual immoral or scandalous conduct. I would imagine that code would include sex outside of marriage, pregnancy, drug use, alcohol use and any number of behaviors that the school would consider immoral regardless of the sexual orientation of the student engaging in it.

From the legal documents...

On September 12, 2005, Pastor Bork sent plaintiffs’ parents letters stating that plaintiffs had been suspended because they had “a bond of intimacy . . . characteristic of a lesbian relationship,” in violation of the “Christian Conduct” rule. On October 15, 2005, by a unanimous vote of the School’s board of directors, the School expelled plaintiffs for engaging in a homosexual relationship.

Seems to me the Pastor gave his reason.

 

[Master Mason]

Ok. So for all the argument about how there are quotes not only from the old, but the new testament refering to the "sin" of homosexuality (or the practice of homosexual acts), what about the other new testament verses? Do they not allow women to teach?



Why bother teaching girls at all?! If it's in the Bible, shouldn't they be following this rule?

The entire passage that this verse comes from is a discussion of how worship should be conducted. Prior to this verse, Paul talks about how prayers at worship are to be offered for everyone-as the practice of the time was not to extend prayers for those outside the immediate community. Paul also talks about how men should lift their hands in prayer without anger or argument and that a woman should dress modestly and her good deeds should be her adornment. In the verse you quote Paul clearly says "I" suffer not a woman to teach. These are not the words of Jesus and while they should be considered seriously, they are not at the level of a command. In many churches, temples and mosques, women are not permitted to teach or to lead services in any way-so those rules are still followed and are not considered outdated to many believers.

Further, the word teach in Timothy 2.12 is derived from a Greek Word, which was specific to teaching as a Rabbi would teach his congregation.

I'm not a litteral bible person, but to understand what is being written one must expore the language in which it was written, they were very nuanced.

 

[Master Mason]

That may be.
BUT since I personally don't believe that a god wrote the bible, AND since I believe the authors of the books had their own agendas, AND since Paul wrote his own books and was free to say whetever he wanted regardless of truth - that leaves me free to still believe that he was a PooPooHead.

I don't know about PooPooHead, but he certain comes across as not liking women very much.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

From the legal documents...



Seems to me the Pastor gave his reason.

But we don't know that he hasn't also expelled students for "a bond of intimacy characteristic of a sexual relationship outside of marriage"

Until it's proven that these were the ONLY two students ever expelled for a sexual relationship per the code of conduct, we can't simply assume that ONLY homosexuals are subject to it.

 

[Bluestars]

I'm wondering if the pastor pulls all students into his office and asks them about their "sexual activity" with other students?

The students weren't expelled for "sexual activity". Hence the legal ruling. They were expelled for being lesbians. "Allegedly".

My guess is they were expelled because the school believes homosexuality is a sin, therefore it goes against their beliefs. Although I don't agree with this, I think people have the right to their own beliefs. If a person does not believe the same way, they can choose not to enroll in this private school.

I don't agree with this way of thinking, but my kids to go to a private Christian school. We had sign sign personal agreements with the school upon enrollment of our children.

To me it's like abortion. If you think it's wrong, don't do it. If you think the school's beliefs are wrong, don't attend the school. I personally do not agree with intolerance of any kind. If the school my kids attended did something that I had a huge problem with, I would withdraw my kids, not sue the school for practicing their own beliefs.