# California school expels girls because they are lesbians.



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

*Court says private school can expel lesbians*


Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
     Wednesday, January 28, 2009


A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.


Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.


 "The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.
  As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.


 Kirk Hanson, a lawyer for the two girls, said he was disappointed and would talk to them about a possible appeal to the state Supreme Court. 
 According to the court, he said, "if you're a religious school, you can discriminate on any basis you want."


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/28/BAB615IA5R.DTL


----------



## elder999 (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, I think the 1998 Boy Scout ruling was B.S., as most here know-I posted about it a couple of years ago. On the other hand, a religious school is different-_provided that they don't receive state or federal funding._


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.
> 
> As with the Boy Scouts, she said, the primary function of the school is to instill its values in young people, who are told of its policies when they enroll.



Questions:

1. How did the school come to the determination that the girls were lesbians?

2. Inasmuch as the school probably frowns upon any premarital sex -- _which everybody does_ -- are the (Lesbian) girls somehow more guilty than their heterosexual counterparts?

And this one's for the judge...

3. How in Hell are these girls supposed to 'learn even secular subjects within a religious framework' if they are expelled from the school?

Despicable.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

I believe the principle asked them if they loved each other, and that was enough.

Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.


 
Disagree with the court ruling if you want, but don't stoop to stupid, uninformed, bigoted statements such as this one just because you disagree with the belief system of the school in question. It's obvious from what you've posted you know nothing about the transmission of texts or the translation of the same. 

I would also mention the fact that the school is apparently Lutheran in affiliation. I know of no Lutheran synod that teaches homosexual inclination or orientation is sunful. It is the act which is considered to be sinful. Again, you may disagree with that, but at least have the common courtesy to accurately present the position with which you disagree. 

Now think on this: If the court had ruled that the school in question was _not_ allowed to expell the students  how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> Disagree with the court ruling if you want, but don't stoop to stupid, uninformed, bigoted statements such as this one just because you disagree with the belief system of the school in question. It's obvious from what you've posted you know nothing about the transmission of texts or the translation of the same.
> 
> I would also mention the fact that the school is apparently Lutheran in affiliation. I know of no Lutheran synod that teaches homosexual inclination or orientation is sunful. It is the act which is considered to be sinful. Again, you may disagree with that, but at least have the common courtesy to accurately present the position with which you disagree.
> 
> ...


What part of what I said is incorrect, stupid, uninformed, or bigoted?

"being gay is a sin"
While the Lutheran church is as divided as any other, some branches do in fact teach that Homosexuality is a sin.
http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/LutheranHomosex.htm

"because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word"
Christianity often refers to whichever version of it's bible that particular branch prefers. Many different sects will point out chapter and verse condemning homosexuality as sin, and as the Word of God.

"and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned,"
Again, many sects teach this, and take a dim view to questioning it, or suggesting it may be in error.

"even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc."
If you know of any -original- biblical documents I would like to know, as would countless biblical scholars. There are countless sites online that refer to mistranslations from the Hebrew to English. 
Here is 1 of many
http://www.answering-christianity.com/hebrew_manuscripts.htm

Here is another:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
(yes I'm aware of the sites affiliation biases)

And yet another:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm

So, for me to make a statement based on the established teachings of numerous ministries and sects, as well as the research of those who spend more time on biblical studies than I, doesn't strike me at bigoted.

I've been arguing Christian history, dogma and theology for 22+ years with pastors, ministers and missionaries from at least 15 different Christian sects, and have read at least 5 different versions of the Christian bible cover to cover repeatedly (I own 3 btw).  I don't follow the faith, but have had 2 different ministers tell me I understand Scripture better than most of their congregations.




> Now think on this: If the court had ruled that the school in question was _not_ allowed to expell the students how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith?


As the article said : "Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said."

My position is, boycott the school. I'm firmly against supporting any organization that follows a discriminatory policy.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jan 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I believe the principle asked them if they loved each other, and that was enough.
> 
> Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.


 
Regardless of your opinion of anyone's religious beliefs, I don't believe that any private organization should be forced against their will to do business with people they choose to refuse service to. 

I know many people won't agree with this, and before anyone asks, yes, I think that should mean people being allowed to deny service on the basis of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation etc. We have the right to assemble, we should also have the right to disassemble. 

I know that the law doesn't agree with this position. I believe the law is wrong.

If I am a private business owner, I should have the right to do business only with those with whom I choose. If that makes a person a bigoted ***, and in many cases I believe it would, then judge that person for it and encourage others not to do business with them.

I'd much rather live in a world where the bigots were out in the open and we could all make informed decisions about who to associate with, than one where they closet their bigotry and leave me with no way of knowing who to avoid.


-Rob


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

I agree with you to an extent on the business argument, however as the California court said, this isn't a business matter, but a religious education one.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What part of what I said is incorrect, stupid, uninformed, or bigoted?


 
This one: "Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc."

It is incorrect, stupid and bigoted. It seems to me that you are unwilling to give the party you disagree with the kind of understanding you would demand of them for others. 



> "being gay is a sin"
> While the Lutheran church is as divided as any other, some branches do in fact teach that Homosexuality is a sin.
> http://christianteens.about.com/od/homosexuality/f/LutheranHomosex.htm


 
You seem not to have read your own source. The site in questions states that the ELCA does not have a defined doctrine about homosexuality or homosexual behavior as yet (although speaking from what I have seen to date it seems quite likely that the ELCA will come down in favor of homosexual behavior in the future). The Lutheran Church of Australia does not teach that homosexual orientation is sinful per se, nor does it think the Bible addresses homosexuality. Finally, the Missouri Synod distinguishes between homosexual orientation and homosexual acts and, as the web site states: "Again, it does not state that homosexuality is a conscious choice, but still contends that homosexual behavior is sinful." It is the act which is viewed as sinful, _not_ the orientation.



> "and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned,"
> Again, many sects teach this, and take a dim view to questioning it, or suggesting it may be in error.
> 
> "even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc."
> ...


 
I am well aware of the fact that the autographs no longer exist. But never has a text in the history of western civilization been the subject of more critical study than the Bible. As for countless biblical scholars being interested in the original exts, count me as one of them. I am working on a doctorate in Theology and have spent quite a large amount of time studying the transmisison of texts and the history of interpretation. 

Here are some facts for you to ponder:

The oldest version of any surviving New Testament book is a papyrus fragment of St. John's Gospel (18:31-33, 37-38) which dates from roughly 125 A.D. According to a one survey, there are over 5,000 surviving texts which can be grouped as follows:

88 papyrus fragments 

274 manuscripts written in capitals (that is, each letter is separate and their are no accent marks) 

2795 manuscripts written in lower case letters (that is, the letters in each word are linked) 

2209 lectionaries for public liturgical use 

Additionally, new texts are continually being discovered. A 1963 catalogue (K. Aland) lists 4689, while a 1976 count was 5366.Over 4000 ancient (100-400 A.D.) translations exist, composed variously in Latin (from 2nd century onward, many prior to St. Jerome's translation), Syriac (2nd to 3rd century), Coptic (3rd century), Armenian (4th century), Ethiopian, Slav, Gothic (4th century), and Arabic. 

Furthermore, many ancient writers (e.g. Eusebius) quoted Scripture extensively. You can reconstruct virtually the entire New Testament on the basis of these quotations, and the ancient texts from which these quotes come are generally older than the manuscript versions of the Scripture books which have come down to us. Nearly 100 New Testament papyri have survived, all of them Egyptian. Their time of writing was approximately between 100 to 200 AD. In addition, the writings of early Christians quote the New Testament so extensively that virtually the entire New Testament, apart from seven or eight verses, could be reconstructed simply from the works of those same Christians. (Keep in mind, however, that the early Christians did not quote chapter and verse, since there were no chapter/verse subdivisions until the Middle Ages. I am just referring to the amount of text which is quoted). 

And this is just referring to what we have on the New Testament.

In comparison, we have only two extant copies of accounts that Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants, and only one line in all of ancient writing which indicates that Alexander reached India during his conquests. Both of these events are undisputed by historians. 





> There are countless sites online that refer to mistranslations from the Hebrew to English.
> Here is 1 of many
> http://www.answering-christianity.com/hebrew_manuscripts.htm


 
This site is a Muslim attack on Christainity via suposed corruptions in the text which were supposedlly made *on purpose* by Jews and Christians. And they did this, according to the web site, in order to disprove the truth of Islam in the Bible. 

Meanwhile, Muslim critical study of the Qu'ran is nearly non-existant because it is _literally_ the word of God. Your choice of sources reveals a lot about your view of Christianity, and even more about your view of objective scholarship. 



> Here is another:
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm
> (yes I'm aware of the sites affiliation biases)


 
Religioustolerance is neither religous nor tolerant. It does point out that experts disagree amongst themselves. So what? That it is the case in every field. 



> And yet another:
> http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/kjv.htm


 
If you have a specific thing to referance, please feel free. I have no care for the KJV and everyone knows that it has serious translation problems. And I mean _serious_.

But that just goes back to my earlier point: the Bible is the most critically studied text in the world. New translations are made when groups of scholars think they can come up with more accurate translations through a better understanding of the text. 



> So, for me to make a statement based on the established teachings of numerous ministries and sects, as well as the research of those who spend more time on biblical studies than I, doesn't strike me at bigoted.


 
No, what is bigoted is the contempt you showed towards people you disagreed with. And, to speak frankly, if the sources you sited in your reply are an indication of the best you have it's just sad. If you want to study textual problems and actually see if they can be resolved enroll in a good doctoral program. 



> I've been arguing Christian history, dogma and theology for 22+ years with pastors, ministers and missionaries from at least 15 different Christian sects, and have read at least 5 different versions of the Christian bible cover to cover repeatedly (I own 3 btw). I don't follow the faith, but have had 2 different ministers tell me I understand Scripture better than most of their congregations.


 
Great. And despite that you couldn't show an ounce of courtesy in your post. 

What good is your learning if you're like that?




> As the article said : "Any state law that required the school to admit gays or lesbians would violate the school's freedom of expression and religion, McKay said."
> 
> My position is, boycott the school. I'm firmly against supporting any organization that follows a discriminatory policy.


 
Good for you. Boycott away. But leave the bigotry in your other pants. Otherwise you're just another person who demands others to respect your position but who won't do the same.

Now, how about answering the questions I made in my initial response? 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

Chris, 
  With respect, my sources were basically 3 random ones I pulled off the first page of a google search as I've little time tonight to spend hours of research on the matter. If they are bad, there are good ones out there that can be found. Most of my position is based on those previously mentioned discussions and debates which aren't "linkable". 

You might want to pause your counter attack and read a few years worth of my posts pro and con regarding Christianity here to have a more accurate view as to just where my head is as it isn't where you suggest as many here will verify. In any event, you read my comment as an attack on your faith, rather than the sarcasm it was. My apologies for not being clearer.

Regarding your question (singular, as I only see one)
"If the court had ruled that the school in question was _not_ allowed to expell the students how would that not have been the state telling a relgious institution what to do when it comes to practicing its faith?"
It would have been the State telling a religious institution what to do which would then violate the implied "wall" separating religion and government as per the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (implied because while oft referenced, such a statement does not actually appear in the Federal Constitution), the 14th Amendment (though that only applies to freed slaves as per several USSC decisions cited here previously in other discussions), as well as possibly going against 330 U.S. 1 (1947), 370 U.S. 421 (1962), etc.

Now if you'd like to discuss or debate scripture or Christianity, a separate thread would probably be in order.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 28, 2009)

elder999 said:


> On the other hand, a religious school is different-_provided that they don't receive state or federal funding._



Regrettably--as it's distasteful to me--I must agree. Your money, your choice.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Regrettably--as it's distasteful to me--I must agree. Your money, your choice.


Yup.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 28, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Chris,
> With respect, my sources were basically 3 random ones I pulled off the first page of a google search as I've little time tonight to spend hours of research on the matter. If they are bad, there are good ones out there that can be found. Most of my position is based on those previously mentioned discussions and debates which aren't "linkable".


 
If you're going to make claims on the internet about things perhaps you should supply facts to back up your argument, which is what I tried to do in my last post (something oh so rare on the internet), or even an argument in the first place. The only thing you did was post a news story and then make snarky comments. That doesn't qualify as an argument, at least not where I am from. 



> You might want to pause your counter attack and read a few years worth of my posts pro and con regarding Christianity here to have a more accurate view as to just where my head is as it isn't where you suggest as many here will verify.


 
I'm not going to do a search on every poster to see their posting history on a specific topic before I reply to a thread. Frankly, I don't care what you think regarding Christianity or any religion for that matter. That should be evident if you read my postings in this thread.  



> In any event, you read my comment as an attack on your faith, rather than the sarcasm it was. My apologies for not being clearer.


 
I am not a Lutheran. I have plenty of problems with Lutheranism, personally. Again, I don't care one whit about what you think about Lutheranim, Christianity in general, or any religion. What I cared about was the rank innacuracies you posted.

The only sarcasm in your posts were directed to people you disagreed with. You belittled people because of their beliefs, which I hardly think you'd appreciate if it was directed your way. As I said, your post lacked common courtesy. 



> Now if you'd like to discuss or debate scripture or Christianity, a separate thread would probably be in order.


 
You were the one who brought both topics up in this thread. I just posted a reply. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 28, 2009)

chrispillertkd said:


> If you're going to make claims on the internet about things perhaps you should supply facts to back up your argument, which is what I tried to do in my last post (something oh so rare on the internet), or even an argument in the first place. The only thing you did was post a news story and then make snarky comments. That doesn't qualify as an argument, at least not where I am from.


 
I'll remember next time to be certain when making a 1 line reply to include 10 pages of corroborating evidence. Is there a preferred format, or should I stick to standard notation?  That's more sarcasm btw.

I wasn't seeking an argument, merely posting a story and commenting on it.  Last I checked the rules (which I helped write) that was allowed here.



chrispillertkd said:


> I'm not going to do a search on every poster to see their posting history on a specific topic before I reply to a thread. Frankly, I don't care what you think regarding Christianity or any religion for that matter. That should be evident if you read my postings in this thread.


 
Yes, you're quite clear.



chrispillertkd said:


> I am not a Lutheran. I have plenty of problems with Lutheranism, personally. Again, I don't care one whit about what you think about Lutheranim, Christianity in general, or any religion. What I cared about was the rank innacuracies you posted.


 
Yes, I'm still waiting for you to show me where what I said was in fact, inaccurate as you claim. 



chrispillertkd said:


> The only sarcasm in your posts were directed to people you disagreed with. You belittled people because of their beliefs, which I hardly think you'd appreciate if it was directed your way. As I said, your post lacked common courtesy.


 
I'll remember to run my next terse comment by Emily Post before hitting submit.  more sarcasm.

If I belittled anyone, its a small minded and bigoted group, whose opinions and feelings are of no interest to me. What homophobes want, I can care less about.  A contradiction somehow I'm sure, but not my first I'm afraid.



chrispillertkd said:


> You were the one who brought both topics up in this thread. I just posted a reply.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



So now we're arguing theology and debating your issues with my comment rather than a rights violation and discrimination issue.  Makes sense to me.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Remember, being gay is a sin, because someone wrote it in a book and said it was Gods word, and that word is never wrong, is never to be questioned, even though it may be a mistranslation given that the original writing was lost, oh, 1,500 years ago, and we're going off a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.


 



chrispillertkd said:


> Disagree with the court ruling if you want, but don't stoop to stupid, uninformed, bigoted statements such as this one just because you disagree with the belief system of the school in question. It's obvious from what you've posted you know nothing about the transmission of texts or the translation of the same.


 
Bob may not, &#8216;tis verily true, but I&#8217;m willing to show, yet again, that *I do* :lol:



> _1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)_*: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."*


 
We&#8217;ll leave aside the source of Corinthians-Paul, God or other, and simply assume that it was Paul. I&#8217;ll even concede that it was written circa 56 A.D., though I have my own viewpoints about this-remember that it was written in _koine_ or Greek of the time. The original verse might look something like this:




> * Don't you know that the unholy will not inherit the realm of God? Don't kid yourselves. None of these will inherit the realm of God: the immoral, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers or extortionists will inherit the realm of God.*


 
Unholy is _adikos_ and means unjust; by extension wicked, by implication treacherous; especially heathen: unjust, unrighteous. This word has special implication, as we . Two words I'm sure caught your immediate attention: _malakoi_ and _arsenokoitai_. You won't find them in whatever translation you are using&#8211;you'll find various English words and phrases instead, like "homoesexual offenders." What I have shown are the words in the original language. *The truth is, no one knows absolutely for sure what the words mean, and therefore what Paul really meant.*

It is important to note that at the time of Christ the word in common usage, which meant "homosexuality", was homophilia. That word was used in the Greek language until well after the time of Paul's death, *but this word is never used in scripture.* McNeill, in his work, _The Church and the Homosexual_, writes that a second century use of the word in "Apology of Aristides" seems to indicate that it means an obsessive corrupter of boys.

Professor Robin Scroggs of Chicago Theological Seminary takes the position that both words&#8211;_malekos_ and _arsenokoites_-refer to the active and passive partners in the Greek practice of pederasty, which should not in any way be confused with homosexuality. Pederasty is child molestation, pure and simple. A pederastic relationship existed between a lover (usually a mature male), and a beloved, a boy young enough not to yet have whiskers. The lover was always the active partner; the beloved was required to be passive. Not every relationship was sexual in nature, but nearly all were. The beloved was not to be sexually satisfied&#8211;that was the prerogative of the lover only. When the beloved became old enough to grow whiskers and otherwise become more manly, he was exchanged for a younger person. The reason for this was because the ideal was a boy who resembled a woman. Boys would pluck facial hairs, let their hair grow, some wore makeup. Professor Scroggs contends that the boy was the malekos, and the adult the arsenkoites referred to in this passage of scripture.


While pederasty appears to be homosexual in nature, the reality is that the persons engaging in this activity were for the most part heterosexuals in nature-still are, apparently. Pederasty was considered appropriate to a boy's training for manhood. The relationship was impermanent, lasting only as long as the boy kept his youthful appearance. There was no mutuality&#8211;there was no mutual satisfaction or pleasure, and the boy was used by the lover like a thing, not as a person to love and treasure.

At any rate, this is probably NOT an injunction against homosexuality, per se-though Paul was rather obsessed about the nature of the sexual relationship and, while the question of male-male relationships in the New Testament is debatable, the question of female-female relationships is not, as it does not appear anywhere in the New Testament.




> *Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."*


 
In transliterated Hebrew, the verse is written: 

_"V&#8217;et zachar lo tishkav mishk&#8217;vey eeshah toeyvah hee." _

The first part of this verse is literally translated as _"And with a male you shall not lay lyings of a woman_" Many, probably most, theologians, Bible translations and biblical commentators agree that the verse is directed at men who engage in at least some for of anal sex with other men,but they do not agree on the full scope of the forbidden activities. 

The verse is, unfortunately, incomplete. Its precise meaning is unclear. The phrase "lay lyings" has no obvious interpretation. Attempts have been made to make sense out of the original Hebrew by inserting a short phrase into the verse.

Obviously, it is important for a student of the Bible to resolve exactly what behavior is forbidden: is it:


_All homosexual behavior, by either men or women, or _
_All sexual behavior between two men, or _
_Only anal sex between two men, or_
_Only anal sex in a Pagan temple ritual, or _
_Sexual activity between two men in a woman's bed? _

Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the meaning of this verse. Many people tend to select that interpretation that most closely reinforces their initial beliefs about the Bible and homosexual behavior, but this probably isn't so at all.

Later on, in Leviticus 20:3 we have all the severe penalties. Death. Stoning. Whatever.



> _ Leviticus 20:13_*: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."*


 
Leviticus 20:3 is part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also: permits polygamy ,prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period ,bans tattoos ,prohibits eating rare meat ,bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles ,prohibits cross-breeding livestock ,bans sowing a field with mixed seed ,prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood , and requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath.

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code. It is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp and wear polyester-cotton blends without violating this particular section of the Bible. Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still abuse the Bible by taking these verses out of context and using them to bash homosexuals.

It is likely that the prohibition "thou shall not lie with a male as with a woman" came about for one of the following reasons:

Only sexual acts which could lead to procreation were valued as the tribes needed to grow in numbers in order to survive. Male homosexual sex may have been connected in the Hebrew mind with idolatry. Notice that Leviticus 18:2 deals with idolatry. In fact many of the prohibitions in the Holiness Code were probably connected with idolatrous practices. See 19:26-29.

Women were second class citizens in the Hebrew culture and were generally treated as property. If a man was penetrated in sexual intercourse he was being treated like a woman and so was degraded in the Hebrew mind. The offense was not that this was a homosexual act, the offense was that a MAN was treated like a WOMAN. *If this line of thinking is correct it would serve to explain why there is no prohibition against female homosexual acts in the Old Testament.*

So the school is even on shaky ground religiously speaking, in that there is *no* Biblical proscritption against lesbianism.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jan 29, 2009)

You know, I used to say that nothing that happens in California surprises me....but I think that just got disproved........


----------



## chrispillertkd (Jan 29, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'll remember next time to be certain when making a 1 line reply to include 10 pages of corroborating evidence. Is there a preferred format, or should I stick to standard notation? That's more sarcasm btw.
> 
> I wasn't seeking an argument, merely posting a story and commenting on it. Last I checked the rules (which I helped write) that was allowed here.


 
Of course it's allowed. As is pointing out the fact that you were discourteous. Your boorishness in this thread not withstanding, martialtalk is a great site as far as internet forums go. But that's not because of it but rather in spite of it. 



> Yes, I'm still waiting for you to show me where what I said was in fact, inaccurate as you claim.


 
Then you didn't even read the sites you posted as "references." The one that supposedlly showed some Lutheran groups as considering as sinful homosexual orientations, not just homosexual acts, did nothing of the sort. In fact it did quite the opposite. 



> I'll remember to run my next terse comment by Emily Post before hitting submit. more sarcasm.


 
Do whatever you want. If you end up insulting whole groups of people simply because they disagree with you and do so in a manner which lacks common courtesy hopefully someone will point that out to you again. 



> If I belittled anyone, its a small minded and bigoted group, whose opinions and feelings are of no interest to me. What homophobes want, I can care less about. A contradiction somehow I'm sure, but not my first I'm afraid.


 
It is a contradiction because you are showing yourself to be as small minded and bigoted as the people you condemn supposedlly are. But I suppose that's OK? I have met many people who claim to be open minded but are just bigots against people it's "OK" to be bigotted against. 



> So now we're arguing theology and debating your issues with my comment rather than a rights violation and discrimination issue. Makes sense to me.


 
Frankly, this discussion doesn't rise to the level of theology, something I thought you'd realize given your extensive knowledge that you reference in your posts. It was a discussion of the accuracy of biblical transmission and translation, as well as (and more importantly in this context) the accuracey of your claims about certain points of doctrine. Neither one of those is theology, per se. What is most disturbing (to me, anyway) is your unwillingness to give the people you disagree with the courtesy of accurately representing their position. I somehow doubt that you would appreciate similar treatment. Or is that OK because the school in question somehow offended you? Maybe we're only supposed to be courteous when it suits us.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 29, 2009)

elder999 said:


> So the school is even on shaky ground religiously speaking, in that there is *no* Biblical proscritption against lesbianism.


 
It gets better. There is no prohibition against homosexuality per say. Only against physical homosexual acts.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 29, 2009)

Funny how this turned into a theological argument ... excuse please, discussion, rather than a discussion on points of law of whether a school can enforce rules based on it's beliefs.

Also remember that it is VERY difficult to ascertain discourtesy on text alone. Tonal inflections of sarcasm, contempt, annoyance, are impossible to pick up and thus could be easily confused with reasoning, assertiveness and understanding while disagreeing. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion (especially here on MT) they don't necessarily have to be your own. 

Suggest that if you find yourself becoming emotionally agitated by someone's post it's a good idea to back off, regain the calm you had when you first sat down at your computer and then tackle the points in the post you wish to address. 

Just an idea. :asian:


----------



## tellner (Jan 29, 2009)

What's even more asinine is that they weren't expelled for _being _lesbians and thus harming the delicate sensibilities of the Good Christian Children. They were expelled for:



> "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship,"
> ...
> The girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians," said McKay, who added that the girls never disclosed their sexual orientation during the litigation. Hanson said the girls had been "best friends"
> 
> ...



In other words, they were acting like, well, just about every teenage girl with a BFF or a same-sex crush.


----------



## MJS (Jan 29, 2009)

*ADMIN NOTE*

****ATTENTION ALL USERS****

Please take the time to refresh yourselves on the rules for the study.  If you can't post without taking a personal shot at someone, then perhaps you should not be posting.

Lets keep the discussion at a friendly, civil level.

Mike Slosek
MT Asst. Admin


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 29, 2009)

Orientationism is the new racism.  Gays are now the <N-word>s of the world.

<Begin sarcasm>

So ... I'm curious ... am I the only one who suspects that God is gay? See, there is no Goddess and he surrounds himself with males.  His son supposedly never married and surrounded himself with men ... men who left their families to follow (wink) Jesus.

Sounds like a coven of queers to me.

<End sarcasm>

I wonder what a gay preacher might say about this?  Or can God not speak to gays? Inspire them? Show them the way of the Son of Man?

*sigh*

I don't think we can force private organizations who do not accept state funding to enforce tolerance ... especially since Neonazis can march in Skokie in this country.

We may not like it, but we must tolerate it. Unfortunately.

Father, please forgive them for they know not what they do.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 29, 2009)

Based on Tellner's quotes, this story is really starting to stink. A court is supporting a school in kicking a student out because...






> [*]"a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian relationship,"
> [*]the girls were expelled in their junior year for "conducting themselves in a manner consistent with being lesbians,"
> [*]One of the girls was identified as bisexual on her MySpace page, the other's page said she was "not sure" of her sexual orientation.
> [*]McKay said the website also contained a photograph of the girls hugging.
> ...



I totally get that an independent religious school that does not recieve state funds can teach children that same-sex relations is contrary to the a school's and faith's beliefs, but this is seriously wrong. It has all the charm of a witch hunt and lynching. There has been no demonstrated sexual contact that I can see hear, so I call this one thought crime prosecution.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 29, 2009)

tellner said:


> What's even more asinine is that they weren't expelled for _being _lesbians and thus harming the delicate sensibilities of the Good Christian Children. They were expelled for:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, they were acting like, well, just about every teenage girl with a BFF or a same-sex crush.


I'd have to agree with you on this... unless the girls were openly groping each other or caught in the bathroom or empty class room engaged in an obvious sexual act or even just caught french kissing one another.. to me they were as Tellner said just acting as girls do with their BFF. 
Yet of course it is likely what the headmasters at the skool are worried about is 
1. How it LOOKS like these girls are likely bumping pee-pees together when not in school because they're so *close* friends.  
2. The School's own image of righteous and straight laced students and staff is threatened by the actions of these girls. 
3. Their _own_ mental wheels turning/spinning as they watch these girls interact together and their imagination runs away with them and *gasp* they're having impure thoughts!! Or their impressionable young students are having those (same) impure thoughts! A calamity to be sure.
4. How (in their minds) that gays are trying to permeate every corner of society and they must root out *any* possibility that their sanctum has been infiltrated. 

They should PROVE that the girls are indeed voluntary lesbians and are having relations with each other. But of course what young people say to adults sometimes isn't _always_ believed... is it? :miffer: 

Unless of course it's what the adults want to hear.


----------



## tellner (Jan 29, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> 1. How it LOOKS like these girls are likely bumping pee-pees together when not in school because they're so *close* friends.
> 2. The School's own image of righteous and straight laced students and staff is threatened by the actions of these girls.
> 3. Their _own_ mental wheels turning/spinning as they watch these girls interact together and their imagination runs away with them and *gasp* they're having impure thoughts!! Or their impressionable young students are having those (same) impure thoughts! A calamity to be sure.
> 4. How (in their minds) that gays are trying to permeate every corner of society and they must root out *any* possibility that their sanctum has been infiltrated.



I'm guessing that #2 is the official reason. But that #3 and #4 are the real reasons. Makes you wonder how many hands were on the keyboard when the school muckety-mucks were reading the girls' Myspace pages 

A(n) (un)healthy dose of projection with a big helping of "_Honi soit qui mal y pense_"?


----------



## arnisador (Jan 29, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> I totally get that an independent religious school that does not recieve state funds can teach children that same-sex relations is contrary to the a school's and faith's beliefs, but this is seriously wrong. It has all the charm of a witch hunt and lynching. There has been no demonstrated sexual contact that I can see hear, so I call this one thought crime prosecution.



Yup. It sends an awful message. It's their right to kick the girls out but it hardly seems the best thing to do.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 29, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yup. It sends an awful message. It's their right to kick the girls out but it hardly seems the best thing to do.


Well what else are they going to do... faith healing to cast OWT those demons of homosexuality? (giggles)... 
That's the whole thing about freedom isn't it. The right to choose what is right and what's wrong. If people want to flock to that particular banner then they've a right to do so. If not there are other banners to crowd under. :idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 29, 2009)

I would say it hardly seems the "Christian" thing to do, however I'm refraining from additional comments until I have time to hop on my private plane and personally interview all of my sources so as to not appear stupid, bigoted, etc. /sarcasm

The school can do what it wants because it's religious in nature.
That appears to mean that they can discriminate legally, though I wonder how well they would have done if they had ejected the 2 girls for "acting Jewish" or "acting black". 

2 teen girls who are huggy and kissy. Yup, that's guaranteed lesbian there.  
Expelled because of what they put on their MySpace page.
Yep, that's accurate there.  Lets see, 1 of the gals I shot last year on hers says she's 99. (Her ID said 21). It also says she's straight (she's not). MySpace is as accurate as the Federal Budget would be if done by kindergartners.

Sounds like intolerance, homophobia, and general incompetence on the part of the school administration.  There's nothing wrong with 2 -people- being affectionate, 2 women or 2 men, as -straight- members of numerous cultures will show. (Like Greek, Russian, etc)


----------



## teekin (Jan 29, 2009)

Heaven forbid two girls Love one another, and in a Christian school! I'm sure that that is Not what they taught them. Perhaps they can love but just not ever express that love, is that their God's way?:disgust: I'd like to see the director explain how Any form of love can be considered wrong, an expellable offense. These are two young girls, innocents. God save us from the zealots.
lori


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jan 29, 2009)

As much as I disagree with the beliefs espoused by the school in this case, it's a religious school.  So long as they're not receiving government funding or support, then yes, the case is analogous to the Boy Scouts of America situation a decade ago.  They're a private organization, and can choose to be as bigoted as they wish.  

Now, this is all premised on the assumption that the state government isn't providing any funding or support.  I haven't read the article to see if whether this is true.  If the school _is_ receiving such support, then the whole "private organization" argument goes right out the window.  

However, government support notwithstanding, if they're a private organization, they can choose to kick people out, and it would be just as much a constitutional violation to force the entirely private school to accept students against their belief as it would be for a public school to enforce religious doctrine.  Remember, Freedom of Religion is both _of_ and _from.  _


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 29, 2009)

Just wondering about the private organization argument....every corporation is a private organization, whether the owners a bunch of shareholders on the NYSE or not......yet they cannot discriminate who they hire on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc.


  So really this is not a private organization rationale but an exception made for a religious organization.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 29, 2009)

Yes, Congress gets to regulate commerce, so that's different!


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 29, 2009)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> As much as I disagree with the beliefs espoused by the school in this case, it's a religious school.  So long as they're not receiving government funding or support, then yes, the case is analogous to the Boy Scouts of America situation a decade ago.  They're a private organization, and can choose to be as bigoted as they wish.
> 
> Now, this is all premised on the assumption that the state government isn't providing any funding or support.  I haven't read the article to see if whether this is true.  If the school _is_ receiving such support, then the whole "private organization" argument goes right out the window.
> 
> However, government support notwithstanding, if they're a private organization, they can choose to kick people out, and it would be just as much a constitutional violation to force the entirely private school to accept students against their belief as it would be for a public school to enforce religious doctrine.  Remember, Freedom of Religion is both _of_ and _from.  _


Well yeah, it'd be like if I joined PETA and had a nice big fat juicy 16 oz medium rare freshly cut T-bone steak at one of their banquets and they kicked me out.... after trying beating me to death with their asparagus spears.  Or showing up drunk at a MADD meeting? 
That'd be their right... wouldn't it?


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> Just wondering about the private organization argument....every corporation is a private organization, whether the owners a bunch of shareholders on the NYSE or not......yet they cannot discriminate who they hire on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc.
> 
> 
> So really this is not a private organization rationale but an exception made for a religious organization.


 

They'e not bound by commerce laws, being under the auspices of a religious organization. As long as they're not receiving state or federal funding, they can run things as they wish, pretty much, as long as it doesn't violate criminal law. Bob Jones University had a rule against interracial dating for _years._ Homosexuality, adultery, drunkeness, and _participating in demonstrations for causes the university opposes_ are all *still* grounds for expulsion.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 29, 2009)

"No Thinkin' Aloud"!


----------



## Nolerama (Jan 29, 2009)

The religious school should do whatever they want. However, they're fueling their own extinction in the evolution of the business side of religion, or at least that establishment.

Those girls, and anyone in that area that may sympathize with them will think twice about having their family members going to that school, in favor of a more tolerable school.

I think the bottom line is that parents don't really want their kids' schools to be in the national spotlight like that.

I see those girls, lesbian or not, as trailblazers for gay rights in the private sector.


----------



## searcher (Jan 29, 2009)

Sexual orientation is not a protected subject under the discrimination laws yet.   It has been brought up by several corporations, but nobody has passed laws on it yet.   Companies can pass policy against it, but it is not illegal.   

The girls have the same right to do what they are doing, just as the school has the right to disallow them from attending.   Most private schools make parents and students sign agreements that they will behave in a certain manner and follow the schools rules.   It is kind of like the right to refuse service thingthat some businesses follow.

BTW-I am not taking sides on this subject, as I believe that it will accomplish nothing.  The above statements are from personal experience working for a couple of big name companies and having attended both public and private schools.


----------



## elder999 (Jan 29, 2009)

searcher said:


> Sexual orientation is not a protected subject under the discrimination laws yet. It has been brought up by several corporations, but nobody has passed laws on it yet. Companies can pass policy against it, but it is not illegal. .


 
This isn't completely true. While there is no federal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws against it. _*Including, California*_, unsurprisingly.


----------



## Carol (Jan 29, 2009)

elder999 said:


> This isn't completely true. While there is no federal protection against sexual orientation discrimination, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws against it. _*Including, California*_, unsurprisingly.



21 states plus the disctrict  

Also...

- The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that same-sex sexual harassment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

- The U.S. Government expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for federal employees.

- Federal protection may be on the way, with the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) making its way to the floor of the House.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 29, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> Just wondering about the private organization argument....every corporation is a private organization, whether the owners a bunch of shareholders on the NYSE or not......yet they cannot discriminate who they hire on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc.
> 
> 
> So really this is not a private organization rationale but an exception made for a religious organization.



I know what you're getting at, Mark. A parallel here would be Salvation Army, which is a religious agency. Under federal and provincial human rights codes they can refuse to allow homosexuals to volunteer for their agencies. Contrastingly, St Mike's Hospital in Toronto, an ostensibly Catholic agency, funded by Provincial dollars, was castigated for denying certain procedures on religious grounds.

I should add that I known of Catholic and Anglican agencies who've provided excellent programming for gay kids on the streets. Some Christians are, well, more Christian than others.

In the case of our publicly funded Catholic school boards in Ontario, nothing like this could ever happen. The closest to it was a Catholic DSB that attempted to prohibit a gay student from bringing his partner to the prom. I doubt even an independent school could pull off an expulsion on these grounds under the Human Rights Code.

This school, I suppose, is somewhat sheltered from general human rights laws by its religious affiliation. The justice may be correct in her argument as regards independent religious schooling. What I find objectionable is the notion a principal can make an independent and life-defining determination about someone else's sexual orientation, a child's no less. 

All of that said, private schooling, by its very nature, is no bastion of egalitarian or progressive thinking. If people have the monetary means (and perhaps the required pedigree) to educate their children privately, they have the right. Sadly, I believe that many parents opt for independent schooling as a means of sheltering their children from different groups and different ideas.

When I hear stories like this, I understand why the folks at eHarmony.com got sued for unequal treatment. I want to stand up and root for the person who sued those guys. Normally, I'm a separation-of-church-and-state kind of guy. Churches and faithful can believe what they want to believe, but I'm a little fatigued with the notion that the faithful are so precious, so fragile, that they can't function around different people and ideas.

Also, this business about, "Well, if I run a business, I can serve who I want to serve," has "Whites-Only Lunch Counter" written all over it.

I think gays and straights are getting tired of this back of the bus BS and are just gonna push 'til it breaks. Go for it, I say.

As a postscript, I'd love to know more about the general reactions of students in the school to this administrative decision and subsequent legal decision. I hope the kids and families who find this as invideous as I do find the courage to speak up.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Jan 29, 2009)

Personally I think they are better off leaving that school.

I would not want to go to a school that is so Homophobic that they mistake hugging a friend as "lesbian actions" 

And if they are Lesbians who cares they are there to learn not only about education but tolerance and dare I say their own sexual orientation about themselves. A teenagers life is about identifying and learning about oneself,others and the roles at which it fits into todays society it does not need additional ignorance to cloud the view of judgement.


So I say go to public school find some tolerance and unity and let the Homophobic private school be a shining example of ignorance that we as a society can overcome.


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 29, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> This school, I suppose, is somewhat sheltered from general human rights laws by its religious affiliation. The justice may be correct in her argument as regards independent religious schooling.



That is the key here is it is religiously affiliated,  does that give it the same protection as a church? 

I assume even though it is a private organization it is still regulated as to its educational standards, student welfare etc, teacher qualifications and so on.

  I guess the judge would know the law better than me though as to where the regulation of such a school ends.


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 29, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Personally I think they are better off leaving that school.




I think you are right, they are better off getting an education grounded in the 21st century....not the 19th.


----------



## tellner (Jan 29, 2009)

In the 19th century nobody raised an eyebrow at "Boston Marriages" .


----------



## Ramirez (Jan 29, 2009)

tellner said:


> In the 19th century nobody raised an eyebrow at "Boston Marriages" .



My error...the 17th century.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 29, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> I think you are right, they are better off getting an education grounded in the 21st century....not the 19th.



Perhaps, but I like the idea that they're fighting it. As I get older, I appreciate the boat rockers even more.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jan 29, 2009)

From the school's website...



> The 2008-2009 school year theme is Celebrate with Joy!...



... but not too much joy.

http://www.clhs-chawks.org/index.ph...e-superintendent&catid=92:articles&Itemid=204


----------



## Carol (Jan 29, 2009)

Ramirez said:


> That is the key here is it is religiously affiliated,  does that give it the same protection as a church?
> 
> I assume even though it is a private organization it is still regulated as to its educational standards, student welfare etc, teacher qualifications and so on.
> 
> I guess the judge would know the law better than me though as to where the regulation of such a school ends.




There are certain standards as to what a state-run (public) school must adhere to, but for private schools or home-based schools the regulations are different.  Private schools and home-based schools need to meet certain standards for accreditation. The schools cover certain educational benchmarks in order for the students to sit for standardized tests.  Employees of private schools often have to meet local requirements for working with children (ie: passing a background check)

That being said, I think the school falls more under the protections of a church...however...I don't think it falls completely under the protections of a church.  There is enough of a grey area there to make this an academically (no pun intended) interesting case.


----------

