Religious Calgary school threatens to expel "immoral" staff and students

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well, yeah, all schools, However, most school codes aren't based around cherry picking the bible. They relate to safety and interactive behaviour between fellow students and staff.

Anyway, this is the kind of thing that just begs for someone to load a porn video into a cafeteria TV and play it during lunch recess. Then, demand that the school follow through on its threats given every person that witnesses it would have violated the moral code.

And yes Dion, this is a threat. An empty threat is still a threat. And this one is made pretty much to try and make undesirable people feel uncomfortable so that they will leave on their own.

I basicly ignore empty threats as they are not a threat to me.

[19Yzerman19]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and classify this as hate speech.

Keegstra was criminally charged for teaching students that the holocaust was a zionist conspiracy. It's no less hateful to teach kids that being gay amounts to sexual immorality. Certainly no public money should be going anywhere near an institution that blatantly spits on the constitution.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Dion

I basicly ignore empty threats as they are not a threat to me.

Good for you. Doesn't mean a threat is not a threat.

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

This post shows a gross misunderstanding of Christians and Christianity, and is completely wrong in so many places that I don't know where to start.

That's not saying that there isn't a small minority for which your description is accurate. Fortunately, that minority is steadily getting smaller and smaller.

In some ways you are right, the number that oppose Homosexuality and see it as a sin that shouldn't be accepted is decreasing in society, and Canada is ahead of lots of places.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/...homosexuality/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll4.htm

However the only official church website for Canada that I could find that didn't outright denounce homosexuality was the United Church, and their pronouncements are just guidelines to local congregations so their stances don't represent the doctrines of each church.

The message put forward by the organizations is still one of intolerance for all the major ones I could find.

I think the simple question of would the school hire a teacher that is in a gay marriage or not is an easy way to gauge, I would be shocked if they would.

[photon]

Was a bit curious about actual statements by churches, so this is what I could find so far for major religions:

Catholic Church - Does not accept gay marriage and views homosexuality as a sin AFAIK, but couldn't find anything like a statement of doctrine on a Canadian website, I assume it would be identical to the global Catholic one?
United Church - Accepting (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_ucc.htm)
Anglican Church - Seem to be moving towards being more accepting (http://www.anglican.ca/faith/focus/hs/ssbh/hsrh/)
Baptist - Against (http://cbwc.ca/2013/08/vol-9-no-32-m...hristian-view/, http://bgc.ca/about-us/what-we-believe/, http://baptist.ca/wp-content/uploads..._resources.pdf)
Lutheran - Against (http://www.lutheranchurch-canada.ca/...ns%20Stand.pdf)
Presbyterian - Against (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_prc.htm)

Any further or more accurate information appreciated.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by pylon

Then why was the statement about homosexuality made in the original draft? And why do you have no issue with it? I would be livid if I was a parent of a child in that school, and they would be immediately removed from it whether it was edited or not.

If you disagreed with that statement, your kids wouldn't have been in the school in the first place.

On the first part, it's a pretty complicated explanation, which, even if I try to explain, might not be understood, because it really takes an entirely different worldview.


Let me say a couple of things on that though. First, calling something a sin was never meant to discriminate. Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned". Therefore discriminating against someone because they are sinful is being hypocritical. I look at it this way, yes people are sinful, but we are all on this journey together - let's support each other on this journey. Let's love each other and encourage each other, because we are all in the same boat.


Next, is "homosexuality" sinful, according to the Bible? I.e. Is it sinful to "be gay?" The answer to that, despite some who may say otherwise, is definitely no. Sinfulness is never because of who one is, but rather, what one does.


That brings us to whether homosexual acts are sinful. At face value, both the Old and New Testaments have verses that seem to say that, without any real passages that would say the contrary. For that reason, it's easy to see why Christians have long thought that homosexual acts were sinful. However, at least in some instances, the homosexual acts were related to other things that were considered sinful (worshipping at pagan temples). The question becomes, were homosexual acts called sinful simply because, at the time, they were related to something else? It's certainly a possibility. In any case, we can still ask if the same root conditions that may have made homosexual acts sinful back in that day are still true today. I'm comfortable in leaving the issue as a "disputable matter" (see Romans 14), and am fine with anyone being "fully convinced in their own mind" (Romans 14:5). Basically, if someone has good understanding of the Bible, and claims to be a Christian and a homosexual, It's not my responsibility to "argue" with them. As a Christian, I can have faith that the Holy Spirit will convict other Christians of their sins, if in fact they are sins.


At the very least, if homosexual acts are, in fact, sinful, they would be one of the sins that, like the woman caught in adultery in John 8, that Jesus showed compassion for the sinner more than condemning the sin.


So then, what is the answer? Honestly, I can say that I don't know. At face value, the Bible would seem to say that homosexual acts are sinful. However, these days, it's hard to see the background reasoning as to why it must be so. I certainly look at the issue in light of Romans 14.


Most of all, I cannot support discrimination or hatred or any kind. I can see how, for many, many years, how the church singled out homosexual acts, seemingly as being so much worse than other "sins". This, while perhaps unintentional, was hatred. People have good reason for considering that kind if treatment "hatred". In my mind, it's probably the biggest downfall of the church as a whole, certainly in a long, long time.


At this point, I think removing the reference to homosexual behavior in the covenant is wise. I don't think it should be there. I think there is recognition amongst most Christians, that, at the very, very least, the issue isn't as black and white as many thought it was is the past.


For the record, I don't have an issue with gay marriage, etc. I don't have any issue with anyone, no matter what they claim to be. Whether God has an issue, that is something between that person and God. I know it's not a "damning" issue.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

I think the simple question of would the school hire a teacher that is in a gay marriage or not is an easy way to gauge, I would be shocked if they would.

In light of what I stated in my last post. If the person in a gay marriage confessed to be a Christian, if I were in charge, I don't think I would refuse, as foreign as that would sound to the me of 5 years ago.

If I had to guess, I would say this is an area where the church is going to change a great deal in coming years.

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

First, calling something a sin was never meant to discriminate.

But you can see how it can be taken that way right? People who are in unrepentant are typically treated differently by churches that have that view; often they can't hold office, they can't be in ministry, etc.. so they are treated differently because of who they are.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Romans 3:23 says "all have sinned". Therefore discriminating against someone because they are sinful is being hypocritical. I look at it this way, yes people are sinful, but we are all on this journey together - let's support each other on this journey. Let's love each other and encourage each other, because we are all in the same boat.

Exactly, and if that was the position of the school I don't think there would have been an issue. Instead the agreements chose a few specific sins as worse than all the others and made those sins dismissable offenses. Shouldn't the fat teacher be fired too? The teacher who's a backbiting gossip? The teacher that got divorced for reasons not approved in scripture?

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Most of all, I cannot support discrimination or hatred or any kind. I can see how, for many, many years, how the church singled out homosexual acts, seemingly as being so much worse than other "sins". This, while perhaps unintentional, was hatred. People have good reason for considering that kind if treatment "hatred". In my mind, it's probably the biggest downfall of the church as a whole, certainly in a long, long time.


At this point, I think removing the reference to homosexual behavior in the covenant is wise. I don't think it should be there. I think there is recognition amongst most Christians, that, at the very, very least, the issue isn't as black and white as many thought it was is the past.


For the record, I don't have an issue with gay marriage, etc. I don't have any issue with anyone, no matter what they claim to be. Whether God has an issue, that is something between that person and God. I know it's not a "damning" issue.

So I don't think you and pylon are that far off from each other in practice.

EDIT: And a lot of this became redundant in light of your last post, leaving it for posterity.

[photon]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

In light of what I stated in my last post. If the person in a gay marriage confessed to be a Christian, if I were in charge, I don't think I would refuse, as foreign as that would sound to the me of 5 years ago.

That's great, I mean that.

I don't think the leadership of the school would agree with you now (and imagine the outcry from parents!), but hopefully...

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

If I had to guess, I would say this is an area where the church is going to change a great deal in coming years.

...this will come to pass.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

But you can see how it can be taken that way right? People who are in unrepentant are typically treated differently by churches that have that view; often they can't hold office, they can't be in ministry, etc.. so they are treated differently because of who they are.



Exactly, and if that was the position of the school I don't think there would have been an issue. Instead the agreements chose a few specific sins as worse than all the others and made those sins dismissable offenses. Shouldn't the fat teacher be fired too? The teacher who's a backbiting gossip? The teacher that got divorced for reasons not approved in scripture?



So I don't think you and pylon are that far off from each other in practice.

Absolutely, I can see how it has been taken as discrimination. How could you not, in light of what you say in your second paragraph? Some sins are viewed as "acceptable", and some are so bad, we can't even let you be part of our group? So backwards and wrong. The hypocracy is rediculous.

No, I don't think pylon and I are that far off. The vast majority of Christians are just like the vast majority of non-Christians, in that we actually try not to discriminate, and try to be loving and caring to all. And when we try to correct someone, it's because we actually care about that person.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

That's great, I mean that.

I don't think the leadership of the school would agree with you now (and imagine the outcry from parents!), but hopefully...



...this will come to pass.

Oh, there would be outcry, but I honestly believe that there would be some taking up the other side, which would have been far less likely to happen in past years.

[vegasbound]

Hmmm... I went to a Christian school for most of my education in BC. I wasn't the best kid in high school, not a complete wild child by any means, but I didn't bring it into the school. With that being said, I'd be pissed if my school tried to pass this. What I do outside of classroom hours is none of their business.

[afc wimbledon]

'He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.'

Always amazed at how the supposedly pious completely ignore this, it is possibly the most clear and profound message in the New Testament.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Everything has to be taken in context. Considering there are numerous examples of Women in authority in the Bible (much more than you would expect to find in texts from that era), there's probably more to the story on that verse. Second, note the very first word in that verse, "I" (Apostle Paul speaking). Another pretty good clue that Paul is intending the verse as a response to some local condition to his day.

From the context of the chapter, we know that Paul is talking about a specific place - while the church is gathered in worship. Likely, the verse is a request that wives ask questions to their husbands about what is being said during the worship time - after, back at home, instead of interrupting the service. (This is easier to see in the text from the other similar verses).


Honestly, the text in 1 Timothy 2, especially the end, is a particularly difficult passage to understand exactly what it means. However, we know that it is not a verse to be taken at "face value", since that disagrees with what was actually in practice at the time of writing.

A book that endorses both viewpoints ultimately endorses neither. You could likely find as many points in the book to support women in authority as I could find to speak against it.

A publicly-funded school has no business admonishing students against committing imaginary crimes aka 'sins', especially not with the threat of expulsion. I don't care that it's a Catholic school, as soon as they accept public funds, it should mean squat.

And as to the comment that a parent who felt strongly against it wouldn't put their child in that school, that fails to recognize that these institutions might have a better educational track record than others, and in the pursuit of better education, might be the best school to achieve that.

[Flash Walken]

Isn't 'uttering threats' a criminal offense?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Isn't 'uttering threats' a criminal offense?

I dont know.....

[YYC in LAX]

Well this thread has become as dumb as the school's rules.

[Nehkara]

You Need a Thneed, you seem like a pretty cool person and your views are moderate and understandable.

That document is... well... even if I was a Christian and I was asked to sign that... I would make 10000 copies of it and create a bonfire in the parking lot of that school.

They are basically saying that if you don't:

1. Dress like we want you to.
2. Go to the right plays
3. Go to Church regularly.
4. Listen to the right music.
5. Fall in love with/marry/have sex with who we want you to, when we want you to.
6. Watch the right movies.
7. Watch the right TV shows.
8. Refrain from normal teenage impulses.
9. Dance the way we want you to.

Then you could face suspension or expulsion. It's completely and utterly ludicrous.

I find it incredibly arrogant for them to dictate this as applying outside of school hours/property.

Anyway, before I go on a long rant I'm gonna just leave it at that.

[Major Major]

My first thoughts are that I wouldn't be going to a near 2000 year old piece of passed down tales to determine whether or not homosexuality is a sin. It seems pretty cut and dry to me... Something that brings people love and happiness shouldn't be subject to agonizing over scripture. Whatever conclusion you come to, it ranges from hate to patronizing.

The real issue here though is that schools are coming up with charters that cannot be enforced because it is against the law, and the guy just throws that cute little tidbit in there like we are supposed to be impressed with them tapping the breaks on the moral righteousness. It is a pathetic attempt to teach right from wrong and is detrimental to those who attend.

[Zarley]

Can someone please explain to me why the government is still funding religious education in 2014?