"Reckless, irresponsible": Kansas teacher's "gay is same as murder" Facebook rant

[Seek&Find]

We're condemning his language because historically the same language has been used to rationalize and justify violence against gays. There are many volumes written on the subject.

You say you disagree, based on what you refuse to say.

That's not a "tie" in my book.

So your position is that people have acted violently toward homosexuals because others recognized not only that homosexuality is a sin, but that it is equal to all other sins, and that all of us are sinners in need of God's forgiveness and grace.

:waitasec: did I miss the snip containing his hateful words??

No, I've made it clear I disagree that his language was hateful or his intent malicious.

 

[Seek&Find]

So once again, you decline to source your argument or even answer my question.

No I recognize the game you're playing and refuse to sit down to the board.

 

[Nova]

See? That's why there's no need to play the games or put in hours explaining it.

Lol. Really? You're the one that says the applicable verses can't just be read for meaning. You're the one posting linguistic acrobatics etc to support your view, dismiss verses, etc.

A discussion of meaning by a scholar who can actually read the original and understands the vocabulary in the context of the historical period is not "linguistic acrobatics". It's called scholarship.

But that's really the complaint of fundamentalists (not necessarily you), isn't it? They don't want to do that work or even spend a minute reading the work of true scholars. They just want to impose their prejudices on everyone else. They want to read any godawful translation of the Bible somebody hands them and pretend it is a sacred glimpse into the mind of God.

And they want the right to say or print any hateful thing they please without fear of contradiction under the guise that they have "freedom of religion". Tyranny of religion is more like it.

 

[Nova]

No I recognize the game you're playing and refuse to sit down to the board.

If the game is calling nonsense where I see it, then yes, I'm playing.

But it's getting old.

YOU mentioned Deuteronomy.

I did your research for you and found the two passages invoked as prohibitions against behaviors dealing with GLBT issues. One deals with cross-dressing, the other is a mistranslation of an injunction against male prostitution.

I assumed you were referring to the latter.

YOU said that my assumption was wrong.

I asked what you meant instead.

YOU refuse to clarify your remarks.

Now just who is playing games here?

 

[wfgodot]

Is this thread running out of steam yet? (I know, I know, I started it but didn't expect 467+ responses, to say the least!) I vote for a truce, a peace conference, and a day established to be celebrated annually - call it 'Godot Day' - and let it be filled with human understanding, good will, and presents for me.

 

[Seek&Find]

A discussion of meaning by a scholar who can actually read the original and understands the vocabulary in the context of the historical period is not "linguistic acrobatics". It's called scholarship.

But that's really the complaint of fundamentalists (not necessarily you), isn't it? They don't want to do that work or even spend a minute reading the work of true scholars. They just want to impose their prejudices on everyone else. They want to read any godawful translation of the Bible somebody hands them and pretend it is a sacred glimpse into the mind of God.

And they want the right to say or print any hateful thing they please without fear of contradiction under the guise that they have "freedom of religion". Tyranny of religion is more like it.

When I said it'd take a lot of time, resources, etc for you and I to reasonably discuss what the Bible said, sources and support for that position, as well as those for yours, you implied complex study meant my position was in error, because yours was simple. When I said we could simply read the scriptures straight from the Bible, you implied that likewise was no good because that wouldn't involve scholarship, ergo was too simplistic an approach. You're trying to have it both ways, when in reality, you've already admitted it doesn't matter what the Bible says on the topic. You can choose to dismiss the Bible, but why then continue to belabor that point? I think it relates to your background, but I'm not gonna go there.

First the issue was that he used murder first, then it was that he said murder at all, then it was twisted into the teacher calling you a murderer, then it was he said hate speech, which apparently can't be found in his actual words. Then it was he'd damaged students. Of course, there was no evidence of that.

He addressed sins as equivalent. He did not say gays are murderers. Made a catchy rah-rah MSM feigned outrage headline, but didn't reflect what was said. It's like saying an outfit is ugly. That doesn't mean the wearer is.

I have tried to seek out what your objection was, but it can't be pinned down. I think Charlie was right. The real issue is that he believes the Bible, considers homosexuality a sin, disagrees with gay marriage, and had the audacity to say those things.

 

[Charlie09]

He is a teacher in a public school who almost certainly has gay students. Based on what? Gay students are subject to more severe and frequent bullying than heterosexual students.Based on what? I questioned in my mind whether what he asserts is even accepted Christian doctrine.This has been answered My post had information, quotes and cites and yet you bring up the one thing I never mentioned, gay marriage.That's what the facebook poster wrote about Which should be of NO concern to anyone in any religion as gay people are only ever talking about civil marriage, not religious marriage. Oh really?

I went in search of info which I posted and which was ignored possibly because it shows that not all Christinas believe as those here do and not all Bibles even use the same words like "abomination" which is so often cited. That there are numerous interpretations of bible versesIncluding those who say sin is sin and something to be avoided, not celebrated and messages and some preachers, like the one I last cited, warn against using one's personal beliefs, biases and prejudices and read them into the bible, especially when there wasn't even a word for "gay" when it was written. But there is for homosexuality. Your mixing apples, oranges and the kitchen sink here.



http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm

And THAT is what I believe the Christinas who rail against gay people do, they are personally offended and grossed out by gays and so they conveniently read the Bible in a way that confirms God agrees with them and their bias and which supports their "superior" status, endorsed by GOD, as heterosexuals.

Obviously, just like I found about politics on this site, it is impossible to discuss it rationally as all that occurs is superficial sloganeering in favor of what you like and against what you don't like. The idea that Christians and conservatives are some oppressed minority is not compelling and, frankly, absurd. So, as long as people on this site believe the way you do, we can discuss it, but as soon as someone disagrees with you, suddenly it's irrational. Got it!

It's very human but not very Godly to believe God believes just as you do. Fortunately, most people do approach these issues with good will and pure hearts and have no need to condemn people because of who they are to make themselves feel superior. None of this is about gay marriage, it's about playing God and using your status and position to reach an audience with a message of hate that will be likely to incite people to act against gay students because you doesn't like gays. This is incorrect.I know if that happens there is a real risk that the school could be implicated if they fail to act to protect their students.

A person doesn't look their right to freedom of speech or religion just because they teach in a public school

 

[gitana1]

Um, am I the only one who read his whole post in context? He equates homosexuality with all other sins, not just murder. Things like cheating on your taxes or other small stuff would be included in his premise. I'm sorry, while I don't agree that sexual orientation should be considered a sin, and I'm in fact not too big on the idea of basing ones notions of right & wrong on the writings of some self-serving males of ancient times, I have to say that his post is pretty benign.

Taking just two words from the whole to twist the meaning of his statement is no different from those who quote Leviticus to call homosexuality an unforgivable sin but neglect to go protesting down at the local Red Lobster.

All JMO, and sorry if this ticks anyone off, but I calls it like I sees it.

I see what you are saying to some degree. But he contradicts himself, possibly so that he can make an inflammatory, public statement but then try to soften it a bit. He states that "...I do not claim it to be a sin any worse than other sins. It ranks in God's eyes the same as murder, lying, stealing, or cheating." So, even though he states he's not claiming it's worse than any other sin, he then lumps it in with some of the worst sins - lying, cheating stealing and murder.

l don't think he can have it both ways.

He yelled "Fire!" in his own house. On his own social media page.

I think people have different views about social media. Personally, I think social media is an extension of one's privacy.... that at the same time, can kinda be public. Like, flying a flag, for instance. I am allowed to fly a flag, that can be viewed by the public, from the privacy of my own home. People who are offended by it don't have the right to tell me to take it down.

Even if a Facebook page is set to "public," it cannot be viewed unless someone makes the DELIBERATE choice to visit said person's FB page and read it. It's not like this person's views are being broadcast all over the nation. I mean.... look at some blogs out there. There are some people with some pretty whack opinions, but I choose to stay away and not read them, whether they are publicly displayed or not.

IMHO, this man should no more be punished for his views that he posts on Facebook than he should for things he decorates his home with. Would it be acceptable for someone from his place of employment, view his home from the public right-of-way, and then declare that he must be terminated from his horticulture position because all his shrubs were dead? No, it's none of their business, it's his private property, and just because his shrubs are dead doesn't mean he can't effectively teach others how to care for them. For that matter, there are numerous overweight doctors and psychotherapists in dysfunctional relationships. Are we now going to monitor THEIR Facebook pages and take away their credentials? They obviously aren't able to do their jobs correctly if they can't fix what's in their own house, right?

It's interesting to me, that someone really thinks that they have the right to tell another they have no right to make judgements on what goes on in their bedroom when they are trying to make the same judgements about what goes on in another's computer room. Why does one person have the right and the other doesn't? We just keep arguing over who has the "right-of-way" and who has the "Yield," when we all just really need to "Stop." (bickering... that is. :twocents

You know, I wear pants. (I'm a girl, btw.) I saw three Mennonite women yesterday in town, and they graciously smiled at me and my four children. It is their belief that women wear dresses and cover their hair in public. No makeup. I had on a strapless swimsuit coverup with my bikini top string tied around my neck. I know my choice of dress was less than desirable to them. I know their beliefs. They didn't say anything, but I'm sure if I had asked them, they would have stated that they believe women should dress much more modestly than I was dressed at the time. (Sorry... we had just been to the pool. :blushing Had I been at their church, or at their home, I would have expected much more scrutiny. My point is, even though I knew of their disapproval, they didn't scream at me to put on a dress and a head covering, and I didn't berate them for their obviously different clothing choice. Our paths crossed.... and we coexisted. I don't feel convicted the same way they do, but I do believe I am a child of God. So, maybe your beliefs aren't the same as mine, but it's not my belief that matters, it's yours. So why even worry about what someone else believes? Let them believe it, and leave it alone. Why not just coexist and let's quit screaming at each other to accept and change, but rather respect each others differences?

(using the words "you" and "I" figuratively, not literally. )

You are right that one must go hunting for his social media page. But he's an educator, so you can pretty much guarantee his students are going to hunt for it. He knows that. And it's easy for him to make the page private. That he doesn't and then posts the kind of statement that makes many gay kids want to kill themselves or that bolsters a bigot's urge to bully or otherwise harm gay kids, means that he is making a public point he wants all his students to know about.

Does he have the right to do that? Absolutely. But does the school have the right to protect ALL students from educators whose attitude is one that may lead to discrimination of some of those students? I believe yes.

You equate the right to privacy among adults when it comes to what they do in the bedroom with the postings of an individual in his social media page. I don't think that is a logical equation. Social media pages, when not set to private, are public and thus not privileged nor protected as a privacy right. That is especially true because it is so easy to make those pages private.

Further, the right to free speech is balanced by the right of the employer to decide what type of person represents their establishment. Hence, teachers and LE have been fired when it has been found they posed in a pornographic publication, worked as a prostitute or did a movie, even though all those actions constitute free speech.

Some people disagree with such policies, but sadly, not as many as those who think it's okay for an educator to post public hate speech and keep his job. To me, hate speech uttered while teaching is worse than a possibly sordid past that occurred before teaching (unless that past included criminal behavior).

And yes, equating something that science, history and life has proven cannot be changed and is a characteristic one is born with, with stealing, lying, cheating and murder - that's hate speech in my book.

Some people just don't get it. Imagine a child born into a very conservative and religious family in a very conservative and religious small town somewhere in middle America. Imagine that child praying every day, crying, weeping, begging that he or she just be normal, and have feelings for the opposite sex. Imagine the feelings of worthlessness and shame increasing when the child finds that the teacher he or she may admire, hates who that child is and what that child cannot change.

No one chooses this!

And this is the kind of thing that causes gay kids to kill themselves in large numbers, every year.

I don't think anyone is saying the teacher should not be allowed to show who he really is. He has that right. And the school should have the right to protect its vulnerable students.

And I have the right to say that what the teacher stated on a publicly accessible page, is immoral and that who he really is, is a creep.

ETA: In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a progressive Catholic and an RCIA facilitator. I do not agree with the official Church's teachings on homosexuality, as a great number of Catholics do not and as an even greater number of Catholics who actually study the bible and theology, do not.

 

[Charlie09]

If the conversation has degenerated, it's because only one side is discussing. The other side is merely repeating unprovable assertions and/or desperately trying to change the subject. (That last clause doesn't refer to you, Seek.)

The Supreme Court has interpreted the freedom of religion clause to apply to governments in general, not just Congress. Obviously, since SCOTUS has applied the principle to locally controlled schools.

Bill Clinton was not a liberal Democrat. He was very much a Centrist and all too quick to pander to conservatives if it only meant discarding a small group (gays) of his loyal supporters.

MARRIAGE HAS NOT "ALWAYS BEEN DEFINED" IN ANY ONE WAY. I've given you links demonstrating this and you've paid no attention. See why the conversation has degenerated?

Getting shriller and trying to silence the other side with sham arguments the other side is not making...doesn't really make one's own case any stronger.

 

[Seek&Find]

A discussion of meaning by a scholar who can actually read the original and understands the vocabulary in the context of the historical period is not "linguistic acrobatics". It's called scholarship.

But that's really the complaint of fundamentalists (not necessarily you), isn't it? They don't want to do that work or even spend a minute reading the work of true scholars. They just want to impose their prejudices on everyone else. They want to read any godawful translation of the Bible somebody hands them and pretend it is a sacred glimpse into the mind of God.

And they want the right to say or print any hateful thing they please without fear of contradiction under the guise that they have "freedom of religion". Tyranny of religion is more like it.

Tyranny? One man's post is tyranny?

 

[Charlie09]

With all due respect, Charlie, your posts are making less and less sense.

What I said was that gay marriage and group marriage may be distinguished on legal grounds without reference to Biblical "authority". Beyond that, I refuse to discuss the subject of polygamy here.

I said none of what you wrote above.

Whether the legal grounds stays the same or changes, the Biblical example of one man, one woman, doesn't change. It doesn't have anything to do with hate to say that the Biblical example excludes group marriage. It likewise does not include hate to say the Biblical example does not include homosexual marriage.

 

[Nova]

Is this thread running out of steam yet? (I know, I know, I started it but didn't expect 467+ responses, to say the least!) I vote for a truce, a peace conference, and a day established to be celebrated annually - call it 'Godot Day' - and let it be filled with human understanding, good will, and presents for me.

I'm not quite as forgiving as you are, but then I'm not a Christian. I don't have to be, right? I will however abide by your truce because you ask.

May I share something that makes me very sad? As I said above, church was a big part of my life when I was growing up and I've been wanting to go back again. There are lots of gay-friendly churches in my area, so that isn't a problem.

But the word "Christian" has become practically a dirty word to me because of hatefulness such as that posted by the teacher in question (not to mention the NC preacher who wants to put me in a death camp).

I know that isn't fair. You and others in this thread and many Christians I know personally are fine, decent people and your faith is central to your decency.

But that isn't the "Christianity" we hear about for the most part and I can't bring myself to walk through the door of a church (not matter how gay-friendly) where I will be associated with the nastiness that American evangelism has become.

I'm thinking about the Episcopal Church. At least their core values hold that Faith and Scripture must be tempered with Reason.

 

[Charlie09]

If the game is calling nonsense where I see it, then yes, I'm playing.

But it's getting old.

YOU mentioned Deuteronomy.

I did your research for you and found the two passages invoked as prohibitions against behaviors dealing with GLBT issues. One deals with cross-dressing, the other is a mistranslation of an injunction against male prostitution.

I assumed you were referring to the latter.

YOU said that my assumption was wrong.

I asked what you meant instead.

YOU refuse to clarify your remarks.

Now just who is playing games here?

You are!

 

[Nova]

Whether the legal grounds stays the same or changes, the Biblical example of one man, one woman, doesn't change. It doesn't have anything to do with hate to say that the Biblical example excludes group marriage. It likewise does not include hate to say the Biblical example does not include homosexual marriage.

I agree it isn't hateful. It also isn't accurate. Group marriage is the norm through much of the Bible. That is NOT a reason why we should legalize such unions today.

Marriage has been redefined--officially or unofficially--many times throughout history. The sky won't fall if gay people are allowed to wed (in the civil sense only, of course).

 

[Seek&Find]

I see what you are saying to some degree. But he contradicts himself, possibly so that he can make an inflammatory, public statement but then try to soften it a bit. He states that "...I do not claim it to be a sin any worse than other sins. It ranks in God's eyes the same as murder, lying, stealing, or cheating." So, even though he states he's not claiming it's worse than any other sin, he then lumps it in with some of the worst sins - lying, cheating stealing and murder.

l don't think he can have it both ways.



You are right that one must go hunting for his social media page. But he's an educator, so you can pretty much guarantee his students are going to hunt for it. He knows that. And it's easy for him to make the page private. That he doesn't and then posts the kind of statement that makes many gay kids want to kill themselves or that bolsters a bigot's urge to bully or otherwise harm gay kids, means that he is making a public point he wants all his students to know about.

Does he have the right to do that? Absolutely. But does the school have the right to protect ALL students from educators whose attitude is one that may lead to discrimination of some of those students? I believe yes.

You equate the right to privacy among adults when it comes to what they do in the bedroom with the postings of an individual in his social media page. I don't think that is a logical equation. Social media pages, when not set to private, are public and thus not privileged nor protected as a privacy right. That is especially true because it is so easy to make those pages private.

Further, the right to free speech is balanced by the right of the employer to decide what type of person represents their establishment. Hence, teachers and LE have been fired when it has been found they posed in a pornographic publication, worked as a prostitute or did a movie, even though all those actions constitute free speech.

Some people disagree with such policies, but sadly, not as many as those who think it's okay for an educator to post public hate speech and keep his job. To me, hate speech uttered while teaching is worse than a possibly sordid past that occurred before teaching (unless that past included criminal behavior).

And yes, equating something that science, history and life has proven cannot be changed and is a characteristic one is born with, with stealing, lying, cheating and murder - that's hate speech in my book.

Some people just don't get it. Imagine a child born into a very conservative and religious family in a very conservative and religious small town somewhere in middle America. Imagine that child praying every day, crying, weeping, begging that he or she just be normal, and have feelings for the opposite sex. Imagine the feelings of worthlessness and shame increasing when the child finds that teacher he or she may admire, hates who that child is and what that child cannot change.

No one chooses this!

And this is the kind of thing that causes gay kids to kill themselves in large numbers, every year.

I don't think anyone is saying the teacher should not be allowed to show who he really is. He has that right. And the school should have the right to protect its vulnerable students.

And I have the right to say that what the teacher stated on a publicly accessible page, is immoral and that who he really is, is a creep.

ETA: In the spirit of full disclosure, I am a progressive Catholic and an RCIA facilitator. I do not agree with the official Church's teachings on homosexuality, as a great number of Catholics do not and as an even greater number of Catholics who actually study the bible and theology, do not.

I don't have time to address all this. I've spent time I needed to spend doing other RL things here, trying to have a civil discussion, etc.

I will say we've already covered that science hasn't proven it cannot be changed. Nova even stated that origins of homosexuality are still being studied/as yet unknown. And, we've covered that, even if it's part of someone's nature, the Bible says we all have sinful natures, and are still responsible for sins. And that's relevant because that was what the teacher posted.

So, the teacher posting his beliefs is now equated to working in or prostitution. Really?

 

[Nova]

Thanks for the great post, gitana1.

 

[wfgodot]

I'm thinking about the Episcopal Church. At least their core values hold that Faith and Scripture must be tempered with Reason.

Yeah, I had an invite from a great friend here to check out the Episcopals - the "English Catholic" thing he knew would appeal to the anglophile in me. But I'm stuck being a Lutheran; after all that catechism stuff I figure I've too much time invested to go elsewhere!

To quote Chesterton - love the guy - again, "The Church is a house with a hundred gates; and no two men enter at exactly the same angle."

It hasn't been that long since I finally discovered an angle that worked for me.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's pronouncement that heaven awaited not only believers but those who wanted, and tried, to believe didn't win him many friends at the Vatican but was a welcome thing to me when I read it, as well.

And yes, a Lutheran has just quoted two Catholics to explain in part his belief system.

 

[Charlie09]

I agree it isn't hateful. It also isn't accurate. Group marriage is the norm through much of the Bible. That is NOT a reason why we should legalize such unions today.

Marriage has been redefined--officially or unofficially--many times throughout history. The sky won't fall if gay people are allowed to wed (in the civil sense only, of course).

No, group marriage was not the norm - we've gone through this already. It certainly wasn't the norm in New Testament times. It was recorded - but that doesn't mean accepted or promoted during ancient Bible days.

Disagreement with redefining marriage does not equal hate.

 

[Nova]

I don't have time to address all this. I've spent time I needed to spend doing other RL things here, trying to have a civil discussion, etc.

I will say we've already covered that science hasn't proven it cannot be changed. Nova even stated that origins of homosexuality are still being studied/as yet unknown. And, we've covered that, even if it's part of someone's nature, the Bible says we all have sinful natures, and are still responsible for sins. And that's relevant because that was what the teacher posted.

So, the teacher posting his beliefs is now equated to working in or prostitution. Really?

I'm trying to abide by wfgodot's truce but the misinformation continues. Science doesn't have to prove "it can't be changed". Science is unable to prove it CAN be changed. That is sufficient.

Yes, the origins are being studied. All research to date points to biological causes for gay men. (Alas, the study of lesbians lags behind, as it so often does.) What is being debated at this point is genes v. the mother's hormones. It looks like different cases may have different causes.

 

[Seek&Find]

I'm not quite as forgiving as you are, but then I'm not a Christian. I don't have to be, right? I will however abide by your truce because you ask.

May I share something that makes me very sad? As I said above, church was a big part of my life when I was growing up and I've been wanting to go back again. There are lots of gay-friendly churches in my area, so that isn't a problem.

But the word "Christian" has become practically a dirty word to me because of hatefulness such as that posted by the teacher in question (not to mention the NC preacher who wants to put me in a death camp).

I know that isn't fair. You and others in this thread and many Christians I know personally are fine, decent people and your faith is central to your decency.

But that isn't the "Christianity" we hear about for the most part and I can't bring myself to walk through the door of a church (not matter how gay-friendly) where I will be associated with the nastiness that American evangelism has become.

I'm thinking about the Episcopal Church. At least their core values hold that Faith and Scripture must be tempered with Reason.

I'm glad you feel a calling back to church and faith. That's what I sensed and alluded to earlier. That's why you want to dig into what the Bible says, I think.

Anyway, I don't need a truce as I never thought we were at war. I really gotta run or my hubby might just kill me.