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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviously not - as the most rabid of posts are on this thread.
Obviously not what?

I do want to congratulate us all on at least maintaining some decorum and thus keeping this thread out in the open, without it being flushed down to the political forum.

I really didn't think this thread would get the response it has, and it's a welcome response as long as we don't start beating one another over the head with two by fours.
 
No, I didn't.

So, as I asked in a couple posts, the anger is over the order of the sins listed? Would it have been better if murder had been at the end, in the middle, excluded, the list was longer, etc?

Regardless of what you imagine God thinks (I still find it astounding that anyone would presume to know that, but never mind), human beings do make distinctions between the severity of different sins.

The teacher could have just written "In the eyes of God, homosexuality is the same as any other fornication." That would have been Biblically sound, a fair equation and sufficient to make his point.

Of course, so few people obey the injunctions against fornication nowadays that such a statement wouldn't have conveyed the hatred he really wanted to express. So he jumped instead to what most people consider the worst possible sin. Equating gays with murderers is no accident; it's hate speech.
 
When believers say they can "see through the eyes of God" or claim to speak for God, they do realize they are talking about the Creator of an Infinite Universe, don't they?

Yet they insist that all the Creator's thoughts can be contained in a single book!

The hubris is astonishing to me.

Yes, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. No one said all His thoughts are in it? As mentioned, we believe the Bible to be the Word of God given precisely to lead us in His ways. You can choose not to believe that.

I think the original parsing of scripture began in your posts?

So, is the issue with the teacher's post that he believed?
That he believes differently than you do?
That he posted those beliefs?
That he doesn't support gay marriage?
That he said homosexuality was a sin?
That he listed it with other sins?
That he listed it next to murder?

Because sometimes it seems it's just one of those, and sometimes it seems all...
 
So, if someone disagrees and points out that the author of an article left out numerous Biblical verses related to the topic he's addressing, it's antithetical to learning?

Yes, because it's simply wrong. The "other verses" to which you refer don't say what you think they say.
 
He may have known about the acts, but if He knew about gay people, why did He never mention us in that all-encompassing book?

BTW, the causes of homosexuality are still being studied, but the fact that sexual orientation is an innate part of one's "nature" is not disputed by any reputable authority.

He didn't mention many different groups of people specifically. He did mention homosexuals, but primarily focused on the acts, as that's what separates people from God.

Yes, still being studied. Reputable authority is subjective.
 
It's just interesting that you are personally ok with the hateful comments on this thread - but not ok with someone expressing what is in the Bible,because that's "too" hateful.

Just an observation really.

What's funny is that some Christians think their faith is so important that it should not only govern their lives but mine as well.

Yet if I point out that said Christians are speaking from faith, something which by definition cannot be proven, rather than reason, I am being "hateful".
 
I quoted your post in which you quoted my question; so I assumed it was an answer to me. :waitasec:

My response wasn't meant to be personal or snarky - by "peculiar" I meant nothing other than "uniquely", basically. American fundamentalism IS also, truly, a "tiny corner".

In your posts, you talk of Christians this and Christians that, and biblical this, etc, as if your particular brand of Christianity's view is the ONLY view. Or the only TRUE view. Other Christians might find that a tad arrogant, just FYI.

Lol. Well, that's not the intent. All brands of Christianity subscribe to the Bible as the Word of God, so I stick closely to what it says precisely so denominational schisms don't obfuscate. And the teacher referred to the Bible, not denominational doctrines.
 
Yes, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. No one said all His thoughts are in it? As mentioned, we believe the Bible to be the Word of God given precisely to lead us in His ways. You can choose not to believe that.

I think the original parsing of scripture began in your posts?

So, is the issue with the teacher's post that he believed?
That he believes differently than you do?
That he posted those beliefs?
That he doesn't support gay marriage?
That he said homosexuality was a sin?
That he listed it with other sins?
That he listed it next to murder?

Because sometimes it seems it's just one of those, and sometimes it seems all...

Oh, all of the things you list make him an idiot. But I defend his right to be ill informed.

It's the comparison to murder to which I object, because that comparison has proved dangerous, historically. And, yes, I have a problem with him publishing that opinion to 600 people, including students. (Students who may very well be gay, for all he, you or I know.)

If I seemed to be arguing other matters, it was only because I was correcting misinformation as I encountered it.
 
I really think when you read my posts that, in effect, your own opinions hop in and adjust some of what I've written to keep them accordance with your own disagreements about the matter.

"Hateful" here begs definition: I would define it as having to do with opinions and stances which would, in effect, cause grief to other human beings by denying them certain freedoms of expression.

The stances I support here are those which would guarantee rights to those who have not enjoyed them before. I don't see that as being hateful; I do see it as being opposed to those who would continue to deny those rights.

Being vitriolic in defense of what one believes isn't necessarily being hateful. But opinions stressed and posted on a social network, when one's employment deals with teaching in a public school, certainly may be.

I have to run. RL calls. But it does help to know how you are defining hateful. I'd say it's loathing, despising, wishing someone ill or harm, intentionally doing or saying things to hurt another, visceral and intense dislike.

I don't see that in the teacher's post.
 
He didn't mention many different groups of people specifically. He did mention homosexuals, but primarily focused on the acts, as that's what separates people from God.

Yes, still being studied. Reputable authority is subjective.

There is no reference to homosexual persons in the OT. The concept did not exist in 800 BCE.

I've never read a reputable philologist who finds a reference to homosexual persons in the NT. By "reputable" I mean credentialed, published and accepted in his field; religious "scholars" grasping at straws to make the Bible say what they want don't count.

There are a few dubious passages in Plato's Symposium, but even there it isn't clear that Plato has a concept of homosexual orientation that is comparable to ours. There is a brief story about lifelong male companions in a Japanese text dating from the 16th century.

Otherwise, the concept doesn't appear with any regularity until the 1700s. It isn't formally defined until psychiatrists do so in the 1800s.
 
I have to run. RL calls. But it does help to know how you are defining hateful. I'd say it's loathing, despising, wishing someone ill or harm, intentionally doing or saying things to hurt another, visceral and intense dislike.

I don't see that in the teacher's post.
Well, again - and call me crazy - I see "visceral and intense dislike" when he equates homosexuality with murder.
 
I have to run. RL calls. But it does help to know how you are defining hateful. I'd say it's loathing, despising, wishing someone ill or harm, intentionally doing or saying things to hurt another, visceral and intense dislike.

I don't see that in the teacher's post.

Yeah, 'cause how could likening me to a murderer be hurtful? :rolleyes:
 
support for a teacher professing that the mere existence of certain people is a "sin". Maybe because it invovles hurting children I expected a less right wing reflex than usual but no. It's perfectly OK that a teacher is publicly proclaiming to the world that gay and lesbian students are "sinners" incapable of redemption and similar to people who have committed grave crimes, but in the case of gay people, not for anything they have done, but merely for existing, thus condemning them without hope as they can't change who they are.

Even if these alleged Christians hate everything about gay people can you'd think that a teacher would at least understand the rate at which gay and lesbian youth experience bullying and end up committing suicide. I'm not very fond of fundamentalists but I don't find their existence so distasteful that I go around publiciy condemning them. I understand that people are different and some need to rely on religion, some find comfort in it, some need the fear of hell to motivate good behavior, whatever, there are reasons for their seemingly illiogical beliefs and as long as they don't try to impose them on me I'm fine with them practicing their religion, being religious. To have a teacher essentially confirm a bias against gay people just becasue they ARE gay is setting up gay and lesbian students in his school for mistreatment. Most school systems and states have anti-discrimination laws that cover sexual orientation. Not to mention it is heartless and cruel and completely unecessary. Does God really need Christians to use Facebook to tell gay people they're sinners? I admit to a bias against religion in general but I always found Jesus to be an individual unlikely to intentionally cause someone anguish becasue of something about themselves they can't change. Fortunately I don't understand what compels Christinas to need to do this. It's just ugly and mean.

This idea of selectively using the Bible to condem that which one does not like is certainly not some universal christian view and people shouldn't pretend it is. I often hear Leviticus quoted, but what else did he say:

Leviticus 11:4-7 – "But you shall not eat...the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud."

Leviticus 18:22 – "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 – "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death..."

Leviticus 20:9 – "Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death

Leviticus 20:10 – "If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."

Leviticus 19:19 – "...do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread

Why such selective use? Because the self rightious accuser is not really concerned with sin as much as he is with condemning the sinner and proclaiming their sinner status to the world. The rightious accuser can be forgiven his sins but not the homosexual because he simply IS a homosexual. If this is what Christinas need to feel good about themselves maybe they need some self esteem courses.

Bottom line, this is about a public school teacher who wields great influence over students. A gay student is at a severe disadvantage once called out by a teacher as a sinner by status. There is unequal power and the teachers power can and should be constrained when it is likely to endanger certain students. Just like teachers can't date students, neither should they be allowed to condemn them for their sexual orientation.

This is from the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/lgbthealth/youth.htm:

Experiences with Violence
Negative attitudes toward gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people put LGBT youth at increased risk for experiences with violence, compared with other students [1]. Violence can include behaviors such as bullying, teasing, harassment, physical assault, and suicide-related behaviors.

A 2009 survey* of more than 7,000 LGBT middle and high school students aged 13–21 years found that in the past year, because of their sexual orientation—

Eight of ten students had been verbally harassed at school;
Four of ten had been physically harassed at school;
Six of ten felt unsafe at school; and
One of five had been the victim of a physical assault at school [2]. ..

What Schools Can Do
For youth to thrive in their schools and communities, they need to feel socially, emotionally, and physically safe and supported. A positive school climate has been associated with decreased depression, suicidal feelings, substance use, and unexcused school absences among LBGT students [5,6].

School personnel, leaders of community organizations, parents, and youth have a role to play in building positive, supportive, and healthy environments for youth. Such environments promote acceptance and respect and help youth feel valued [7]. Schools can assist by implementing clear policies, procedures, and activities designed to prevent violence. For example, a study, found that, in schools with LGB support groups (such as gay-straight alliances), LGB students were less likely to experience threats of violence, miss school because they felt unsafe, or attempt suicide than those students in schools without LGB support groups [8].



The issue isn't just a public statement, and you know it. There is a far cry between a public statement of "I hate Mondays! Worst day in the world!" and "Homosexuality is a sin on par with murder" (summarizing).

One does not call into question the ability of the teacher to treat students and subject matter fairly. One does.

One does not inflame against a group that is historically marginalized. The other does.
 
Great post, mom! But in fairness I should point out that I don't think the teacher or anyone here would say that gays are beyond redemption. They just want us to deny everything about ourselves in order to achieve redemption.

Which sounds a lot like lying to me, yet another sin. So it's quite the Catch 22.
 
who once lamented the passing of an age when gays could be lynched talked about his new plan to rid the world of homosexuals so the idea that sin and punishment is not inextricably intertwined in the chirstian perspective seems disengenuous. Christians can condemn whatever they want in their own hearts and practice what they preach in their own life but I see no reason to need to publicly proclaim a whole set of people are sinners except to hold them up for ridicule and/or violence. And if that is their aim I doubt any higher being would approve and if it isn't their aim they should stop once the obvious is pointed out to them. That by isolating and making a group of people not only the "other" but sinners like murderers you are likely to invite someone to take action against them and, as a Christian, I'm sure you'd want to make sure that didn't happen.

Pastor Worley first preached last week on how to "get rid" of gays and lesbians:

"I figured a way out, a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers, but I couldn't get it past the Congress. Build a great big, large fence – 50 or a 100 miles long – and put all the lesbians in there. Fly over and drop some food. Do the same thing with the queers and the homosexuals, and have that fence electrified so they can't get out. Feed them. And you know in a few years, they'll die out. You know why? They can't reproduce

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/22/video-of-north-carolina-pastors-plan-to-get-rid-of-gays-goes-viral/

This wasn't the first time he addressed the topic as he had previosuly preached "Holding the Line" to his Providence Rd. Baptist Church:

We're livin' in a day when, you know what, it saddens my heart to think that homosexuals can go around, bless God, and get the applause of a lot of people, lesbians and all the rest of it! Bless God, forty years ago, they would've hung, bless God, from a white oak tree! [shouts of "Amen!"] Wouldn't they? [shouts of "Yes!"] Amen?

http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_yo...osexuals-bless-god-from-a-white-oak-tree.html

Because it suits your purposes to isolate his post from all sociological and historical context.

How do we punish murderers? What do the teacher's remarks imply as to how we should punish homosexuals?

If you reasonably believe someone is trying to kill you, what does the law allow you to do? Now what should you do if you believe a gay person is making sexual overtures to you?

The above are not idle questions. The "just as bad as" or "worse than murder" rationals have been invoked to justify gay bashing and killing in hundreds of instances.

Would you call a political leader who declared war and/or ordered executions "non-threatening" and "non-violent" just because that leader never killed anyone with his own hands? To be clear, I am NOT comparing this teacher to Adolf Hitler. The point is that exhorting others to violence is itself a violent act.
 
how do you repent? From what I understand oreintation it is not a choice so even if you decide to not have a sexual relationsuip you would still be gay, i.e. have a same sex sexual attraction. Or do understand it, that as long as the gay person abstains from sex, then they can be redeemed? As a lapsed Catholic I believe that is basically the churchs position. You can be gay but can't act on it. Attraction might be present but as long as there is no overt act you reap your reward. Other Christian groups try to change gays to being straight which reportedly is not terribly successful. Altogether I just don't get the obsession with sexual sins. It seems many other types of sin are more destructive than people who have sex outside of marriage or other sins of that type. To me, this focus relates more to man than God. I can't see a higher being having such a focus but men, sure. I've always felt that God has been made in man's image in most religions.


Great post, mom! But in fairness I should point out that I don't think the teacher or anyone here would say that gays are beyond redemption. They just want us to deny everything about ourselves in order to achieve redemption.

Which sounds a lot like lying to me, yet another sin. So it's quite the Catch 22.
 
Exactly, boytwnmom! I don't know if I've ever read those ideas so well articulated.

One of the most chilling things I ever saw was an interview with a man in an Alabama prison for killing a gay man. The killer looked straight into the camera, grinned and said, "I know God has forgiven me for my sin because I've repented, but that little ****** I killed? He never got the chance to repent!"

And then he laughed. "So he'll be in hell while I'm in heaven!"

NOW I KNOW THAT NOBODY HERE WOULD AGREE with that man's sadism or even agree that he had actually repented his sin. Perhaps the teacher we're discussing wouldn't agree either.

But let's don't be naive and pretend that equating homosexuality with murder doesn't embolden such people by providing justification for their hatred.
 
how do you repent? From what I understand oreintation it is not a choice so even if you decide to not have a sexual relationsuip you would still be gay, i.e. have a same sex sexual attraction. Or do understand it, that as long as the gay person abstains from sex, then they can be redeemed? As a lapsed Catholic I believe that is basically the churchs position. You can be gay but can't act on it. Attraction might be present but as long as there is no overt act you reap your reward. Other Christian groups try to change gays to being straight which reportedly is not terribly successful. Altogether I just don't get the obsession with sexual sins. It seems many other types of sin are more destructive than people who have sex outside of marriage or other sins of that type. To me, this focus relates more to man than God. I can't see a higher being having such a focus but men, sure. I've always felt that God has been made in man's image in most religions.

I believe that is the Catholic church's position: that only the acts are sinful (because they are chosen), not the (innate) orientation itself. In essence, the Pope is perfectly comfortable with insisting that my husband and I be celibate. I guess since it works so well for his priests...

Most Christians try to espouse something similar, but frankly when pastors start talking about concentration camps, it's hard to see the distinction between acts and persons.

And doesn't Jesus say in the NT that the thought is as much sin as the deed? So my choosing to remain celibate doesn't really make me any less of a sinner, does it?

I find it the utmost condescension to be told by men that God has given me this special burden to bear. And I find it downright evil to insist that God finds my marriage of 35 years to a wonderful man an "abomination" that must be ended.

Really?! The Creator of an Infinite Universe has nothing to do but worry about whether my husband and I have the right genitalia? Really?!
 
support for a teacher professing that the mere existence of certain people is a "sin". Maybe because it invovles hurting children I expected a less right wing reflex than usual but no. It's perfectly OK that a teacher is publicly proclaiming to the world that gay and lesbian students are "sinners" incapable of redemption and similar to people who have committed grave crimes, but in the case of gay people, not for anything they have done, but merely for existing, thus condemning them without hope as they can't change who they are.

BBM

That, my friend, is the whole premise of Christianity. There is NOTHING we, as sinners, can do to change who we are. Jesus was our sacrifice, and through believing in Him, we have eternal life and forgiveness.

I am a sinner by merely existing. I am condemned if I do not ask forgiveness for the things that I know are sins. Because of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me, I am convicted and I know when I sin, and therefore ask for forgiveness and try my hardest not to sin again. I cannot deliberately sin without feeling horrible and knowing I need to repent. How is it that I don't have a hard time saying that I am a sinner, but yet so many people take offense? If they aren't believers, why would they even care about my little spiritual game and FB posts to begin with?

I will be in Heaven one day. Along with murderers, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, idolaters, haters, thieves, etc, etc, etc..... IF the before mentioned have confessed their sins before God and accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior. No one's damning anyone. Well, except for the guy on FB. Everyone's damning him for his religious beliefs!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
2,265
Total visitors
2,448

Forum statistics

Threads
589,985
Messages
17,928,700
Members
228,033
Latest member
okaydandy
Back
Top