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

Status
Not open for further replies.
No it wasn't at all. The original post on facebook was disagreement with gay marriage -
Because the man used a biblical foundation for his argument - he is automatically called a bigot and he's accused of hate speech. I disagree with that as much as you disagree with my post.
I stand by my post, you are free to disagree, put me on ignore or whatever you chose to -


The man was accused of hate speech for one reason, and one reason only. Its taken about 12 pages, and you still don't get it but I will try once more - this individual equated homosexuality with murder.

And again, HE EQUATED HOMOSEXUALITY WITH MURDER. Do you get it now?

You can agree or disagree with the accusation of hate speech, but please don't pretend that he was accused of it because he disagreed with gay marriage, or because he used the Bible, or any other silly little straw man. He was accused of hate speech because he equated homosexuality with murder. Simple as.
 
Do we want a thread on gay marriage? I can do one. MSM article all ready to go, etc.

I think if I do one I'll put it in Jury Room. And trust that it doesn't instantly plummet into the fiery bowels of the political forum thing.

It doesn't change the subject of the facebook post.
 
Some have tried exactly that. According to the articles I've seen, they feel the church has no right to deny them. Glad you don't feel the same.

What articles? I'm pretty well read when it comes to leading gay activists and I subscribe to a number of gay and/or progressive publications. And I've never seen anyone even hint at such a thing as the government forcing churches to marry gay couples. The Constitution is rather clear on that subject.

Are you sure you aren't reading materials intended to scare Christians into believing the sky is falling? There's a lot of that out there.
 
The man was accused of hate speech for one reason, and one reason only. Its taken about 12 pages, and you still don't get it but I will try once more - this individual equated homosexuality with murder.

And again, HE EQUATED HOMOSEXUALITY WITH MURDER. Do you get it now?

You can agree or disagree with the accusation of hate speech, but please don't pretend that he was accused of it because he disagreed with gay marriage, or because he used the Bible, or any other silly little straw man. He was accused of hate speech because he equated homosexuality with murder. Simple as.

No he didn't, he named several other sins - murder wasn't the only other sin named. Nova's issue seems to be that he mentioned murder first, I am assuming if he mentioned it third though it would still be a problem?
 
It was not a call to be an invitation to assault and or murder.
The subject here is whether a teacher has the right to put on his personal facebook page how he felt about gay marriage. He said he disagreed with it, and why. You cannot separate that out of the post at this point.

I think he has a right to voice his opposition to gay marriage.

It's the WAY he chose to justify his position that is offensive and even dangerous.

Is that clear enough?
 
I think he has a right to voice his opposition to gay marriage.

It's the WAY he chose to justify his position that is offensive and even dangerous.

Is that clear enough?

He used the Bible to justify his position...I understand that's offensive to you. I disagree that it was dangerous.
 
No he didn't, he named several other sins - murder wasn't the only other sin named. Nova's issue seems to be that he mentioned murder first, I am assuming if he mentioned it third though it would still be a problem?

I see no purpose in mentioning it all except to inflame the homophobic passions of others. As a matter of fact, he could have just said the Bible says homosexual acts are sins and left it at that.

The continued pretense that the teacher just happened to make an innocent comparison and the word "murder" accidentally fell out of his keyboard is not at all convincing.

You know perfectly well what he was doing.
 
Starting a thread doesn't mean only supporting posters may respond to it.
Most posters choose wisely to stay on topic; the topic this thread presented allowed plenty of room for discussion unless someone decided to derail it. I've seen this happen before.
 
He used the Bible to justify his position...I understand that's offensive to you. I disagree that it was dangerous.

No, you're still confused.

Using the Bible to justify his position is just not thoughtful, IMO.

It's the comparison of consensual acts to violent ones that is offensive.
 
No, you're still confused.

Using the Bible to justify his position is just not thoughtful, IMO.

It's the comparison of consensual acts to violent ones that is offensive.

Earlier it was that murder was mentioned first, now it's that it's there at all?
 
Most posters choose wisely to stay on topic; the topic this thread presented allowed plenty of room for discussion unless someone decided to derail it. I've seen this happen before.

More insults - I've already said if you don't like the way I'm posting feel free to discuss it with a moderator -
 
Actually, conservative Christians all too commonly distort and misrepresent what the Founding Fathers believed. This is NOT a personal remark aimed at you or a reference to your views.

What was unique about the U.S. was the very clear and deliberate decision to separate church and state, a decision that has been threatened during various "Red scares" by putting the name of God onto our money, in our courtrooms and into our Pledge of Allegiance.

But all such decisions are relatively recent and were not the decisions of the Founding Fathers.

I think Europeans understand all this quite well. And thanks to their history of religious wars, many European nations now offer more freedom of and from religion than the U.S. does.

Thanks for the consideration. :)

Not surprisingly, we differ on this too.

Religious persecution drove the pilgrims to our shores. They sought freedom from governmental dominance of faith. Our Founding Fathers took great care to craft our founding documents. They did not create a "separation of church and state" as many refer to it today - that exists in exactly zero of our founding documents. There is, however, a First Amendment within the Bill of Rights, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

They could have included that phrase had they wanted to. There are numerous quotes about the role God played in their lives, yet they chose to codify very specific God-given rights and freedom of religion.

Instead, the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from Jefferson's Danbury letter.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

The preceding election had been particularly bitter, and people were burying their Bibles in fear that they'd be confiscated. The letter was designed to calm those fears that government could quash faith/eliminate religion.

This is important because:

The very nature of a wall further reconceptualizes First Amendment principles. A wall is a bilateral barrier that inhibits the activities of both the civil state and religion, unlike the First Amendment, which imposes restrictions on civil government only. The First Amendment, with all its guarantees, was entirely a check or restraint on civil government, specifically Congress...

Link

I do agree that the US does not have freedom from religion.

In fact, both the First Amendment and Jefferson's statement above are completely in keeping with this teacher's right to post his statement of faith.

Moo
 
Confidential to Seek&Find: my preceding post is what I mean by "Christian" scholars cherry-picking. Many (not all) of the Biblical prohibitions you list are cases where somebody has found one word that can have many meanings and then insisted it means "homosexual", ignoring context to serve an anti-gay rights agenda.

Even in the most seemingly obvious references (Leviticus), scholars debate whether the primary concern was private sexual behavior or keeping the Hebrews from joining in the bacchanal at the nearest pagan temple.

As a rule, the ancient world didn't worry too much about sex between males because it didn't result in children and therefore didn't affect property rights. (And sex between females was ignored almost entirely until the 1800s.)

Thanks. I understand what you're saying. I do disagree.
 
No it wasn't at all. The original post on facebook was disagreement with gay marriage -
Because the man used a biblical foundation for his argument - he is automatically called a bigot and he's accused of hate speech. I disagree with that as much as you disagree with my post.
I stand by my post, you are free to disagree, put me on ignore or whatever you chose to -

I've read this whole thread carefully, and have to admit the teacher's Facebook post isn't coming across as particularly "biblical". As each "side" in this debate has laid out their body of evidence, the teacher's assertion looks less "biblical" and more a repeat of a common anti-gay sentiment.

Is there more evidence yet to be produced to show the teacher's statement is more visibly "biblical"? I mean this with sincere curiosity, being personally involved with neither side of this debate.

Here's another one. Only Christians and Jews consider "biblical" to be equivalent to "truth". Being neither one, to me "biblical" means the basis for the behavior/choice/belief/sentiment is found in the Bible. I'm not personally convicted because something is touted as "biblical" or "Talmudical" or "Koranical". I think this is why I am less moved by the assertions of those who defend this teacher's "expression of faith and belief". Those assertions are UNMOVING unless you are a believer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
3,995
Total visitors
4,102

Forum statistics

Threads
593,501
Messages
17,988,193
Members
229,151
Latest member
hongwuzhiye59
Back
Top