Jesus' Example Of Lobbying Against Gays

[Guest]

The issue at hand is standards for student behavior at a public school.

It might be argued that the issue at hand is double standards for student behavior at a public school.

the school district took the position that if the shirt is offensive to anyone, it cannot be worn.

By this definiation, shouldn't T-shirts that promote unChristian agendas be suppresed the same amount as vigor as those that say "Don't touch God's rainbow"? After all, young impressionable Christian kids could find such things offensive.

But, of course, that would be mean, hateful and spiteful, and, above all, intolerant.

I agree completely that the educational system is overburdened with distractions. But why is it that those so insistant on promoting tolerance, won't tolerate anything that refers to God?

BTW, KP, I don't mean to suggest that any of that is your opinion. It just happens that your quote about standards made an easy hook for me to make my point (which is not a particularly original one I admit). I don't mean to imply anything personal.

Perry

[Guest]

michelle wrote:

Could you narrow down your examples a little bit? Like, could you mention one or two specific incidents that you believe provide guidelines for 'aggressive action?'

Perhaps, instead of "aggressive action" i should have said "in your face" action. I think many of the OT prophets, John the B, and even Jesus were in people's faces occasionally.

If you were talking about specific siutations that might require this, an example that comes to mind is an adult bookstore attempting to open in the neighborhood.

Have you ever seen "The Mission" with robert Deniro and jeremy irons? i just watched it for the first time the other night and thought it was incredible. It dealt with very similar issues: do we fight to defend the work we are doing for God, or is pacifism always the answer? the movie leaves the question up in the air, which makes it great food for thought. I highly recommend it.

_____________________
Perry wrote:

It might be argued that the issue at hand is double standards for student behavior at a public school.

my sentiments exactly. school uniforms would solve this problem. why dont public school systems seem to grasp this very simple concept? it would spare so much grief.


TK

[Guest]

Hello, Perry,

Thank you for your response.

kaufmannphillips: The issue at hand is standards for student behavior at a public school.

Perry: It might be argued that the issue at hand is double standards for student behavior at a public school.

Fair enough. But the solution being sought is an exacerbation of the problem, not an attenuation of it.

[unsourced]: the school district took the position that if the shirt is offensive to anyone, it cannot be worn.

Perry: By this definiation, shouldn't T-shirts that promote unChristian agendas be suppresed the same amount as vigor as those that say "Don't touch God's rainbow"? After all, young impressionable Christian kids could find such things offensive.

But, of course, that would be mean, hateful and spiteful, and, above all, intolerant.

If "T-shirts that promote unChristian agendas" are deemed sufficiently objectionable, should such a standard not be applied even-handedly? Students who wear shirts that advertise non-kosher food products, for example, promote unJewish agendas. Students who wear shirts with buttons promote unAmish agendas.

There is plenty to recommend the policy of school uniforms: plain neutral colors in modest cuts.

Perry: I agree completely that the educational system is overburdened with distractions. But why is it that those so insistant on promoting tolerance, won't tolerate anything that refers to God?

I wear tzitzit openly at work, and have never encountered a problem with it. Other staff members wear cross necklaces. So the operative problem may not be with the reference to God, but with the direct criticism of other students.

In parallel, it is one thing for a student to wear an "all this and vegan too" shirt, and another for them to wear one that says "mean people eat meat."


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi, TK,

my sentiments exactly. school uniforms would solve this problem. why dont public school systems seem to grasp this very simple concept? it would spare so much grief.

Ah - you beat me to the punch here. Two votes in favor!


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Ahh...but even better would be no public schools....

[Guest]

FWIW, the "unsourced" quote was from the original linked article.

Ah - you beat me to the punch here. Two votes in favor!

Make that three.

If "T-shirts that promote unChristian agendas" are deemed sufficiently objectionable, should such a standard not be applied even-handedly? Students who wear shirts that advertise non-kosher food products, for example, promote unJewish agendas. Students who wear shirts with buttons promote unAmish agendas.

Yes. Absolutely. That's precisely my point. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that they are NOT applied even handedly. The standards are set up in such a way that Christians can be critized (perhaps many times rightly so)for promoting Christian agendas. At the same time, however, when Christians attempt to apply this same standard to those promoting nonChristian agendas, we're labeled as intolerant.

How's that even handed?

wear tzitzit openly at work, and have never encountered a problem with it. Other staff members wear cross necklaces. So the operative problem may not be with the reference to God, but with the direct criticism of other students.

I'll give you that. It could rightly be argued that I'm stating suppositions as fact and then drawing conclusions. Fair enough. Maybe it's just that God makes for good press.

Let me ask you, and I realize I'm asking you to speculate here, and I'll understand if you don't want to play that game. If the rule stated above, applied evenhandly, resulted in the expulsion of more than 100 gays, what do you think media reaction would be, and how would the school be characterized?

Perry

[Guest]

Perhaps, instead of "aggressive action" i should have said "in your face" action. I think many of the OT prophets, John the B, and even Jesus were in people's faces occasionally.

But when they were "in peoples faces" it was the religious people, the people God was supposed to be in covenant with, not the sinners (as far as I remember). This lines up with what Paul teaches in 1Cor. 5.

[_Steve]

TK wrote:

"Have you ever seen "The Mission" with robert Deniro and jeremy irons? i just watched it for the first time the other night and thought it was incredible. It dealt with very similar issues: do we fight to defend the work we are doing for God, or is pacifism always the answer? the movie leaves the question up in the air, which makes it great food for thought. I highly recommend it."

I also highly recommend it. It is one of my all-time favorite movies. It tricks you, though. It gives the impression that there were only two options open to the missionaries, when, in fact, there was a third. This third option was recommended by the Catholic official who visited the mission, but the movie seems to make him look like the bad guy in that scene, so that only two "legitimate" options remain. This Catholic official seems smitten in his conscience about his role in the outcome, though the decisions were made by the kings of Portugal and Spain, leaving him (it seems) powerless to do anything. I think the third option that he suggested, if followed, would have prevented the holocaust that occurred at the end of the movie. It was only the superstitions of the Catholic natives that ruled this out as a possibility for them.

Of the two options (that taken by Father Gabriel and that taken by Mendoza) I tend to favor the former (and the movie seems to me to subtly do the same), though, as I said, the third option would have been equally "Christian," and would have saved many lives.

The movie serves a healthy function in requiring Christians to sort out their convictions on complex ethical questions, like war.

[Guest]

Hello, Seth,

Ahh...but even better would be no public schools....

Your proposed alternative?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[_Steve]

Emmet,

Awaiting Seth's reply, I will offer mine.

Since widespread public literacy predates the existence of public education, it is clear that other alternatives have historically been found successful--even more successful than public education has proven to be. We have few high schoolers today who can read Greek and Latin, as many in colonial America could. In fact, we have too few who can even read English!

My suggestion would require a wholesale paradigm shift (back to an earlier model of family life). It would include:

1. Families subsisting on a single income, with the mother remaining home with her children, and giving them education, primarily at home, up to about age 12.

2. Beyond age 12, children could be given more advanced education by cooperative schools, or by schools run by the religious institutions supported by their parents (e.g., church or synagogue), or apprenticed in the trade of their fathers (or of other tradesmen known and trusted by the parents).

In this system, the kids could wear any messages on their tee-shirts of which their parents might approve. They could even carry guns "to school," if their parents wished for them to do so (though there would be no school shootings, as we have in the public schools today).