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

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Locke

Yeah, show me the politician thats going to run while opposing Catholic schools. I'm sure that'll go really well for him or her.

Kent Hehr

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

It's actually not. The school is threatening.

Dale Backlin is the Associate Superintendent for Palliser Regional Schools, not the school itself. The school is threatening, but the School Board is against the threats.

Exactly- Palliser is not a religious school district- it simply has some christian schools, formerly private, in its domain. When they joined Palliser and essentially became public schools, they were allowed to retain their own governing bodies that make decisions with regards to the biblical aspects of the school. Palliser is run by educators, but the governing bodies of the society portion of these schools may not be. In a traditional school board environment, I believe the district would be making all of the decisions?

[Flash Walken]

When it comes to education, is the only religion the Alberta government caters to Catholicism?

Are there Sikh or Jewish religious representation amongst public school boards in the province?

Serious question, I don't know.

[Rathji]

There are Jewish Schools, but I am pretty sure they are private.

[Textcritic]

Late to the party, as always. I did only want to provide some corrections to Thneed's interpretation of 1 Timothy:

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Everything has to be taken in context.

First off, I couldn't agree more. When reading a selection from 1 Timothy, it must be taken in the broader context of the entire letter. You never really made any attempt to do so.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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.

Absolutely. But this recognition of the broader "biblical" context that does present some contrasting viewpoints tends to undermine traditional appropriations of "biblical authority". In the present case, most biblical scholars take the view posited in 1 and 2 Timothy as evidence for them having been written by someone other than the Apostle Paul, and at a much later point in time when the churches were more clearly organised and structured.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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.

As already mentioned, this is almost certainly NOT the Apostle Paul speaking. When one undertakes to read the text in Greek and to compare it to Paul's undisputed letters (Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, Philemon), it is easy to see the striking contrast in diction, structure, phrasing and syntactical construction. All this rather positively supports the apparent theological and historical differences with Paul's epistles as well. Most notably, the very well developed church hierarchy presented here is in contrast to Paul's other descriptions of church organisation and worship.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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).

It is much more than that, since the text explicitly forbids women to speak (ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ μανθανέτω), to teach (διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω), and to hold any position of authority over a man (οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός). The rationale provided is that because man was first created, and then the woman followed (Αδὰμ γὰρ πρῶτος ἐπλάσθη, εἶτα Εὕα). Furthermore, the man was then absolved of responsibility for the "original sin" at creation, and contrasted with the woman "who succumbed to seduction and became a transgressor" (ἐξαπατηθεῖσα ἐν παραβάσει γέγονεν).

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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.

I think the point here is fairly clear, and is only "difficult" for those with some pressing apologetic need to rationalise what is at face value a rather misogynistic viewpoint: That women lack the same mental fortitude as men, and are easily misled through flattery. The solution for this church was to insist on their silence during worship, and to preclude them from positions of teaching authority.

Having said that, this perspective of women is not at all out of place within the broader Greco-Roman context of the 2nd century when it was most likely written. By way of comparison, here is a parable by an ancient comedian that endorses a very similar viewpoint: "It is a good wife’s duty, O Nikostrate, to be devoted to her husband, but in subordination; a wife who prevails is a great evil."

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

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....

This is generally quite good. I would bit like to add one thing. "Homosexuality" as it appears in the biblical texts, in ancient Jewish literature, and early Christian literature is nothing like what we tend to think it means by our modern definition. In the ancient world, men did not cohabitate with other men in romantic, life-long partnerships as replacements of traditional, heterosexual marriage. It was never so much about companionship and romantic love as it was about sexual education, power, and social convention. Homosexual activity that took place between men was most commonly part of a pedagogical relationship—it was not unusual for a teacher to have these temporary engagements with his student, but NOT as some sort of replacement for marriage.

So, in those places where there is an apparent injunction agains homosexual behaviour, this is the sort of practice that is being condemned: NOT a romantic relationship, but a cultural, social convention that Jews experienced great difficulty to comprehend.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

By way of comparison, here is a parable by an ancient comedian that endorses a very similar viewpoint: "It is a good wife’s duty, O Nikostrate, to be devoted to her husband, but in subordination; a wife who prevails is a great evil."

That joke would have killed at 2nd century Yuk Yuks.

[morgin]

Figured this was as good a place as any! http://metronews.ca/news/calgary/102...ed-homophobic/