Permission to reprint is granted to all.
From Alan Sears, president of the Alliance Defense Fund:
“Day of Truth” participants will hand out cards of their own, offering to share a candid, loving, fact-based counterpoint to the unspoken assertions of the advocates for homosexual behavior. While making their case from a Christian perspective, the “Day of Truth”ers will confront with compassion — not condemnation — and restrict their discussions to the periods before, after and between classes. [emphasis added]
The t-shirt pictured above was made by Tyler Chase Harper and worn to school in response to the Day of Silence. The school reacted and Harper quickly became the poster-twink for the Day of Truth and his photo is plastered on their website. Let’s contrast Sears’ message with that of Harper’s shirt. On the front:
BE ASHAMED
OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED
On the back:
HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL
To top it all off, the Exodus Live Out Loud blog has linked to Sears’ article over at Baptist Press.
Alan Sears of Alliance “Defence” Fund, these are your words: “loving” “compassion – not condemnation”. Look at what you say you’re doing contrasted with the T-shirt of Tyler Chase Harper’s you “defend”. Be man enough to admit you’re playing offense, not defense.
As the day of silence website says, the truthers have completely missed the point. It’s about bullying. I’m not convinced Jesus had anything to say about being gay, but I’m pretty sure you can find some words of his that apply to being a bully.
And that’s not a message on his T-shirt, it’s bloody masking tape! Why didn’t they just tell him to rip it off and bin it?
Actually Jesus did engage in what some might view as bullying when he condemned the opressive religious leaders of his day for their insistence to holding to their strict interpretation of the law in such a way that shut out and silenced people.
These religious bigots cared more for their regulations than for quality realtionships. Jesus placed loving others and maintaining good relationsips with God, family and neighbors above even the law. And for that some of these religious zeaots bullyed Jesus to death.
I’ve blogged about this very issue a couple of times too. These guys are having a hard time with the truth…
Sears is a professional liar. No surprise here.
What is that verse in Romans that appears on the masking tape, does it contain any implied threat? Can’t make out the chapter and verse in the graphic.
That shirt, like this whole ADF campaign is just pathetic.
Yeah…this Harper kid is such a badass. Running to the ADF so he could keep tape on his shirt!
Boys like him, aren’t so tough. Always on my mind, is my friend BG. Thrown from his family and home to the streets when he was only 14. He survived without prostituting or worse-and eventually was adopted and finished college.
He was the youngest cadet (turned 21 at graduation) in his class at the LAPD Academy. It has the toughest program in the entire country and it’s 10 month commitment.
BG, also qualified to be a federal marshall, but turned it down so he could stay in LA, where his adoptive father relocated.
I’ve been confronted by many anti gays and a few ex gays, and NONE of them have the cojones to do what BG did.
Wearing t-shirts and preaching and singing songs…that’s easy.
Wearing a badge into gang infested mean streets in defense of a public like this Harper, the ADF or DL Foster, now THAT’S moral courage!
BG took a lot more knocks in his life than this Harper kid….Harper can’t even wear his taped up t-shirt without crying ‘they won’t let me!’, when HE’S the offender.
Yeah, let the anti gay keep turning out kids like Harper. Let the gay community (and their straight allies) keep turning out young men like my BG.
Intolerance isn’t courage….that’s for damn sure!
Regan:
You go! You keep getting better and better. Somebody oughta hire you as a spokesperson: you are so eloquent and yet plainspoken and common-sensible!
“As the day of silence website says, the truthers have completely missed the point. It’s about bullying.”
BS. Until this year, GLSEN’s DOS organizing manual was explicit in its intention — to promote homosexuality in schools unquestioned, unopposed, by getting school staff involved and at the exclusion of all other view points. Students were implored to “demand” what they want — and those demands were clearly open-ended, covering far more than “bullying.” Only this year have they eliminated many of the troubling elements that show GLSEN is about much more than “bullying” — they got PR smart this year once Day of Truth was introduced and the media had to look into just what DOS was really about and what DOT was challenging.
The most disturbing section of their previous manual appears on page 13. GLSEN urges students to make a list of “opponents” “that may stand in your way.” Sounds like an intimidation approach. Imagine Day of Truth told students to make an “enemies list.” Think they’d get away with it?
Most kids get bullied at one time or another during school years. To pretend that this is an issue confined to gay students is purely PR…and we must give it to GLSEN, it’s been a very successful PR campaign. So successful that the media uses their “study” in its stories and repeats ridiculously-inflated participation numbers without asking how GLSEN arrived at those numbers. Imagine the MSM reported RNC numbers as unvarnished truth the way they do with GLSEN — wouldn’t we all question that?
“Harper can’t even wear his taped up t-shirt without crying ‘they won’t let me!’, when HE’S the offender.”
So I guess eveyone opposed to the uncritical promotion of homosexuality should just quietly surrender thier Constitutional rights. What a ridiculous position — he’s the “offender.” Only in 1984.
BTW — the Reinhart decision will be smacked down quicker than a horse fly at picnic. Even people like Tobias B. Wolf have condemned that judicial miscarriage…the First Amendment will be vindicated.
Troll.
Schnorr…zzzzzzzzzzzz
“Jesus placed loving others and maintaining good relationsips with God, family and neighbors above even the law. And for that some of these religious zeaots bullyed Jesus to death.”
Now you’re comparing one of the most affluent, successful and celebrated demographics in the history of the world (American and European homosexuals) to Jesus? Silly.
Jesus said a thing or two about sin and what to do about it — most clearly when He said “Go forth and sin no more.” He never said, “I’ve got some requirements, take ’em or leave ’em and if you decide to leave ’em, please, please, please, let everyone know you’ve decided to defy what I’ve clearly stated and then pretend it’s what I would want for people the claim to be Believers. By all means, your deliberate and defiant disobedience should always be justified by selectively distorted quotes from Scripture and you should always attack other Believers who follow the rest of the Book too by claiming that they are not “real” Christians because they actually take seriously *snicker, snicker* all that other stuff I said and what I passed on to those silly apostles.”
“Troll.
Schnorr…zzzzzzzzzzzz”
Great argument! Let me just hide now.
Nunja- there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
“Nunja- there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.”
You know, I’ve gone to a half-half mix lately. Straight decaf just doesn’t cut it. Thanks for the suggestion though — any brand recommendations?
I always wonder, whenever gays or gay-supportive groups are accused of “promoting” homosexuality–what is it, exactly, that’s being promoted?
I don’t think these groups are saying that everybody should be gay; that wouldn’t make sense. People are what they are; you can’t “promote” homosexuality in a way that you can promote, say, a brand of toothpaste.
Given the violence, discrimination, and just plain stupidity that gays are subjected to every day, I certainly wouldn’t “promote” being gay. But basic human rights for everyone–now, THAT’s worth promoting!
It’s Romans 1:27
Thanks Bill, I had trouble reading it in the photo.
Until this year, GLSEN’s DOS organizing manual was explicit in its intention — to promote homosexuality in schools unquestioned, unopposed, by getting school staff involved and at the exclusion of all other view points.
The exclusion of other view points. What is the other view point to treating sexual minority youth with respect and a shred or two of decency?
Other view points is it? You know…that strikes my ear a lot like how the creationists like to frame their efforts to teach religious dogmas as science. Why…we only want to tell our side of things… Which is all well and good except their side of things is a pack of dirty lies. Uncritical promotion of homosexuality…did you say? If anyone is looking for uncritical promotion of their viewpoints it’s the bigots of the religious right. They want their myths, lies and superstitions about homosexuals and homosexuality taught as if they were truth, and when someone calls them for what they objectively are, they bellyache that their religious beliefs beliefs are being attacked.
It’s really very simple. The public schools exist to insure all American youth gets an education. That includes the gay kids too, whether anyone else likes it or not. The fundamentalist kids can go to the public schools, and the heathen kids can go to the public schools too, but the public schools exists to serve them all. No one has a right to deny any kid an education, whether they think god wants them to harass the heathens or not.
If a school administrator allowed their students to wear t-shirts calling fundamentalist Christianity shameful, and telling the student body that it should be ashamed that their school tolerates the fundamentalist kids among them, you could hear the howling all the way to mars, and Alan Sears would be throwing lawsuits around like a antipersonnel mine throwing shrapnel. But let the school tell fundamentalists kids they can’t to the same thing to their gay and lesbian peers, and suddenly the bullies are the ones being…bullied.
You may not regard that as hypocrisy, you may believe god has granted you rights over the lives of the heathens the day you became born again, but the public schools don’t belong just to you. They belong to all of us. Every kid has the right to an education. You need to let them get it. If you want to scream in their faces that they’re an abomination before the eyes of god almighty and America should tremble and beg forgiveness for ever having tolerated the likes of them (in loving compassion and not condemnation, of course) you can do it off campus.
Nunja Bidnet at April 27, 2006 02:33 PM
“Jesus said a thing or two about sin and what to do about it — most clearly when He said “Go forth and sin no more.””
You need a little Bible lesson. Fortunately for you, this site has several folks who actually bother to research before they bleat.
The scripture you’re quoting (incorrectly) is from the story of the woman caught in adultury in John 8:1-11. Incidentally, this is the only story in the New Testament that scholars are uncertain whether it was in the original text. There is no conclusion as to whether it was written by the author or added later.
But let’s assume it occurred as writen. You may want to go back and read it again. It goes like this:
Some Pharisees (pro-family religous leaders who wanting to stand up for morals) caught some woman in the act of adultery. Knowing that Jesus did not support “confronting with compassion”, they thought they would be able to put him in a difficult position. Either he had to “say a thing or two about sin and what to do about it” (which he opposed) or he had to PUBLICLY disagree with the Levitical Law.
Jesus beat them at their own game by saying “fine, you want to apply the Law, then whoever has never sinned before, you be the first one to cast a stone”. Unlike those who like to quote “sin no more”, they felt ashamed at their arrogance and hypocrisy and left.
Jesus said to the woman “where are the people who were accusing you of sin?” She said “they left”. So Jesus told her “Well, I don’t condemn you either. Now go be good”. (“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” NIV)
So ask yourself, Nunja, where do you fit in this story?
Are you Jesus saying “I don’t condemn you” or are you the Parisees saying “I oppose sin!!!”?
what a wonderful way to get to know your bigots and challenge them. co-op “the day of truth” and truely make it true. it is so simple. truth will always conquer hate.
Don’t you love it when the religous right gets in the mood to redefine words? Take this little doozy:
“confront with compassion – not condemnation”
That means nothing in English – confrontation implies a hostile situation. The RR has a dictionary right out of George Orwell’s 1984.
You know, it is amazing to me that religious people like Nunja Bidnet are so quick to talk about how horrible it is to “promote” homosexuality in schools, or to allow gay people the freedom to live our lives as we find best, because of its alleged “sin.” Yet, they have no problem with the promotion of all kinds of other sin, in our schools and in our society.
Think about the sin of heresy – the Evangelicals think the mainstream Protestants and Catholics are heretics, and the Catholics throw that right back in the Protestant faces (in fact, the Catholic church teaches that “religions” like Southern Baptists and Mormonism are actually cults – not even religions). Yet, the Vatican isn’t stopping Catholic Charities from placing children in the homes of these heretics, nor are Baptists protesting at Catholic events to convince the immoral papists to convert to a “true” religion.
What about the sin of adultery? The Catholic church, in which I was raised, holds that all remarriage after divorce is adultery (as every “Christian bible” also teaches) – yet does not attempt to limit the civil rights of those who have chosen this “immoral lifestyle,” nor have they attempted to attack Protestant churches for their centuries-long social movement to make this kind of adultery socially acceptable.
Which brings us back to the basic reality that these “religious” people cherry pick those pieces of the “bible” they choose to enforce, and the sins they choose to believe are destroying society. The question we should be asking all of them is not “why do you think homosexuality is such a sin?” it is: “why don’t gay and lesbian people deserve the same respect as all others who have rejected your religion and religious views?”
Well, Nunja, if you’re trying to make great arguments you’re an hour late and a dollar short. How ’bout before you spout any nonsense you read this preveious exgaywatch discussion on the same topic:
https://exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2006/04/antigay_tshirts.html#comments
I’ll start with you where I felt it was important to leave off there:
Bill Ware said “Children are more sensitive and vulnerable to criticism than we would expect adults to be. Protecting children from physical harm alone is not sufficient. As this report shows, psychological harm can be devastating. Gay teens have higher rates of suicide and other psychological difficulties. Fortunately, these rates have subsided since the Safe Schools and anti-bullying programs were initiated in the mid 1990’s.”
Timothy said “5. The question of whether hostility to gay students is damaging is not theoretical. As the majority noted, of teenage victims of anti-gay discrimination, 75% experienced a decline in academic performance, 39% had truancy problems and 28% dropped out of school.”.
When Willie said “It’s about bullying.”. You were gracious enough to reply “BS. Until this year, GLSEN’s DOS organizing manual was explicit in its intention — to promote homosexuality in schools unquestioned, unopposed”
How about you provide an exact quote where GLSEN said they were promoting “homosexuality”. Sounds like BS to me.
Same for your comment “students were implored to “demand” what they want — and those demands were clearly open-ended, covering far more than “bullying.””. Put up or shut up Nunja, show me where the requests were for something other than ending the social rejection that causes bullying of gays.
Then you said “Now you’re comparing one of the most affluent, successful and celebrated demographics in the history of the world (American and European homosexuals) to Jesus? Silly.”.
Not at all silly, in my opinion its clear Jesus was a schizophrenic gay man. If you want send me email and I’ll give you the off topic explanation.
randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
You said “Jesus said a thing or two about sin…”please, let everyone know you’ve decided to defy what I’ve clearly stated and then pretend it’s what I would want for people the claim to be Believers.””.
Just what the hell are you talking about here Nunja, Jesus never stated ambiguously let alone clearly any opposition to gays, ever. Your statement was simply a lie.
Nunja, you complained “GLSEN urges students to make a list of “opponents” “that may stand in your way.” Sounds like an intimidation approach. Imagine Day of Truth told students to make an “enemies list.” “.
The fact is GLSEN and many GLBTs do oppose you creating a hostile environment with your distortion that Christianity is substantially about minimizing and punishing gays. That doesn’t make you their enemeies. Its you who first chose to characterize those who oppose your hatred, your opponents, as enemies. Own your words Numja. Its you seeing this in the warlike terminology of enemies. Its perfectly acceptable and moral for GLSEN to oppose you and see you as opponents in the fight for safe schools.
Nunja its trivializing and totally disingenous for you to say “Most kids get bullied at one time or another during school years. To pretend that this is an issue confined to gay students is purely PR…”.
No one said this is an issue confined solely to gay students and I defy you to provide a quote that says so. I don’t believe for one second that you don’t realize that effeminate boys are overwhelimingly singled out for abuse much in excess of what the average child encounters. I refer you again to the quotes from Timothy and Bill Ware. You don’t have a good excuse for making this kind of irresponsible statement suggesting there’s no need to worry about anti-gay bullying in particular.
The final hypocrisy of your’s was “So I guess eveyone opposed to the uncritical promotion of homosexuality should just quietly surrender thier Constitutional rights. What a ridiculous position — he’s the “offender.” Only in 1984.”.
Like its a big sacrifice for you not to be able to minimize and punish gays. Where in your constitution does it say your freedom of religion includes the right to condemn gays and create the social rejection that obviously disproportionately harms LBGTs.
You know, even in Canada sometimes were impressed with the American rhetoric. Talk of “freedom” and “all men are created equal”. Society means compromises. Just how is your right to be free to overemphasize a trivial portion of your bible that doesn’t affect you personally greater than the right of same sex attracted children to be free from the damaging effects of your condemnation. “Condemns” thats the literal word religious antigays like you used against us. “enemies” that’s also the literal word you used, not gays or GLSEN, to describe how you feel about those who oppose the hatred that represents such a trivial portion of your Christianity. A small portion of your bible than that which supports slavery. You abandoned that on moral principle, you can abandon your anti-gay biblical hatred based on the same moral principle.
Save your tangential mention of court cases for the courtroom if you ever get there. If you can’t put into your own words the overriding principles from some legal case and how its relevant to doing what’s right don’t expect to impress me or any average Jane with words that aren’t your own.
Strangely enough I think the message on the Day of “Truth” cards is 100% right on:
“I am speaking the Truth to break the silence. Silence isn’t freedom. It’s a constraint. Truth tolerates open discussion, because the Truth emerges when healthy discourse is allowed. By proclaiming the Truth in love, hurts will be halted, hearts will be healed, and lives will be saved.”
Are you sure that it’s the “Truth” people that are passing out these cards? I don’t think anyone could have summed up the mission of the Day of Silence any better than that. There isn’t one word in this message with which I disagree. It seems to me that this is the card that the “silence” participants should be passing out.
The problem is, those who are passing the cards out don’t believe in, or follow, the message on the cards. These are the same people who beat us down with the Bible but don’t follow the Bible’s teachings themselves. “Christian” hypocrites are a dime a dozen.
I think the Silence kids should use the “Truth” cards to educate. Tell their fellow classmates that they agree with their message and why. It probably won’t make any difference to these brainwashed kids (many of whom are closeted gays themselves), but the message is true, appropriate, applicable and powerful nonetheless.
Wow, what a powerful idea, Zeke. I agree. Those cards really do have everything to do with what needs to happen, and nothing to do with that shameful t-shirt…
Nunja is trolling but I do think she’s somewhat correct in her first post. I believe under current precedent that the majority overstepped its authority in its decision. It based its ruling on Tinker on the grounds that the speech was materially and substantially disruptive to the school environment because it offends gay and lesbian students and they cited a study showing gay and lesbian students experience a high degree of discrimination which affects classroom performance.
The problem with this (not to rehash signifigantly old arguments, I tried to make this point before but I’ll do it briefly here) is not in the outcome, I think its GOOD if school administrators have greater control to supress messages that potentially can affect the educational environment. The problem is that by relying on Tinker the majority used a Supreme Court precedent to try to shoe-horn in a logic that doesn’t work in this case. Read page 4 of the opinion, Chase Harper wore the shirt on two consecutive days.
It was only on the second day a school official noticed the shirt and asked him to remove it because it might be disruptive to other students. I agree it “might” have caused a reaction from students but the fact is he got through an ENTIRE schoolday without any “material and substantial disruption” and he was making his way through another without any when he was noticed by an administrator.
The majority opinion also noted (p6) that Chase Harper had a “tense” verbal exchange with students between classes (presumably pro-gay students offended by his “message of love”). I’m not sure that this is a “material and substantial” disruption either because the school day was NOT disrupted enough for any teacher or school official to be informed of it. Two sides simply exchanged differing opinions on the issue.
The opinion also noted the disruptions caused by several students the year earlier. Some students engaged in violence, although it does not say what happened to the students in that case one hopes they were suspended. It also says that a “straight pride” day was organized informally and that “some students were asked to remove their T-shirts and did so, while others “had an altercation and were suspended for their actions””
This also does not allege “material and substantial disruption” due to the SPEECH. It alleges material and substantial disruption due to the SUPRESSION of speech. I think the students above acted improperly. The proper course is to follow the school administrator’s orders to maintatin discipline and if you feel (rightly or wrongly) that your rights have been violated investigate the possibility of legal action. The students resisted an order from an authority figure, perhaps physically and at that point became a disruption. However, there is no legal allegation the speech itself is disruptive.
One last point to consider. We can all I think be grateful that Chase Harper’s distasteful message had the opposite of his apparent intended effect, at least according to the Advocate.
So, what are my thoughts? Its still a bad decision because I don’t believe the ruling was at all supported by current controlling supreme court precedent (which the majority cites). I also don’t believe if the court wanted to make this change it had the authority to do so unilaterally. I think Tinker SHOULD be modified but until such time as it is I respectfully submit that Justice Reinhardt engaged in bad law. I think the change to the interpretation can better be accomplished by either federal law or by a supreme court decision, but muddying the constitutional waters unecessarily like this is a mistake.
OUCH, I meant her second post, the comment “BTW — the Reinhart decision will be smacked down quicker than a horse fly at picnic. Even people like Tobias B. Wolf have condemned that judicial miscarriage…the First Amendment will be vindicated.” which while I don’t share her vitriol I agree with her as a matter of law. Besides, I think the REAL truth, that homosexuality is NOT shameful will shine through.
Romans 1:27, huh? Compassionate and loving?
I think that verse has been cherry-picked by Chad and the ADF to suggest that whatever bashing, violence, illness, or persecution that gays experience at the hands of heterosexuals is merely a “due penalty” that they have brought upon themselves because of their “perversion.”
There is no Truth in the “Day of Truth.” It is just an exercise in disinformation and hetero-fascist oppression.
“And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (NKJ)
OK — so I mistakenly added “forth.” Hardly warrants an accusation that I quoted said scripture “incorrectly.” The point of using that passage in particular, since the irony seems to be lost on my interlocutor, is that the convenient portions of this verse are used frequently (especially during the Clinton years) as a sword against anyone that wants to present a view on moral issues that don’t conform to the media-Hollywood-academy orthodoxy. I certainly don’t need to be “schooled” about Bible stories here, I’m quite familiar with the Scriptures. Just because I agree with nearly-universally accepted interpretations of Biblical morality (because much of it is unambiguous, including a prohibition on many activities, of which homosexual behavior is unquestionably on the list). Publicly stating your moral position, whether Biblically-based or not, does not make you a “Pharisee.” That is just an attack device used in an attempt to attack the person rather than the argument.
Since we’re trading Bible verses, I’ll put another on the table — Mat. 28:18-20 — here Jesus is pretty clear about the duties of discipleship. He’s not telling his followers to act as Pharisees is He?
“Are you Jesus saying “I don’t condemn you” or are you the Parisees saying “I oppose sin!!!”?”
You seem to be saying here that Jesus didn’t oppose sin, only the Pharisees did. That is a ridiculous claim, especially since the passage ends exactly (except for the one word I mistakely added) how I have presented. I cannot personally “condemn” anyone for sin, only God can, but it never ceases to amaze me that people here condemn others with as much stridency as those who they accuse of the same.
Kendall:
The article you linked to from the Advocate mentions that at this same HS in San Diego where Chad wore his “shirt,” there were physical confrontations, threats of violence, vandalism, and at least two students were so harassed as to withdraw from school into an independent study program because they were gay!
I do not ~now~ think, based on this new information, that telling Chad to take off the masking tape was an unreasonable act. There was a documented (i.e., lawsuits) history of disruptive behavior, significantly affecting part of the student body because of activities like his.
How many more gay students have to be harassed out of school before you think this activity is disruptive to the educational environment?
Nunja Bidnet = troll
Not here for rational discourse.
Do not feed troll and it will go away.
Sharon – read the article more closely – The students bullied by the anti-gay presence on campus were intimidated – until Chase Harper wore that shirt, awakened the resolve and fire of the gay community and trippled the presence of pro-gay DoS participants. The school had a history of not protecting gay students, Chase Harpers speech brought attention to the issue and people came forward and the school district lost a lawsuit because they weren’t doing their job – protecting people from violent reactions.
There IS no allegation Chase Harper did that. Just the opposite, there is evidence (an entire day’s worth) that he drew so little attention to himself that no one noticed his shirt for an entire school day although its not contested he wore it in the first place.
Again, yes, the school has to punish violence, that’s the job of ANY school administration and when you don’t do that you lose. By the same token schools have to balance students rights UNDER CURRENT PRECEDENT to express themselves. I do not believe under Tinker, which is Supreme Court Precedent (and which the Court said it relied on even if the logic doesnt’ follow tinker) that this was a legally correct decision. It may be the result I’d like to see, but I don’t support a circuit judge making this law.
I have been challenged above to “put up or shut up” in regard to GLSEN’s recent manual overhaul. Please see below. There are excerpts directly from the manual that affirm my assertion that GLSEN is about more than combating bullying (which in my view would be a VERY worthy goal if it were true). My big problem is that working through school boards and administrations, GLSEN has embarked on a campaign that actually creates an environment for their opposition that they claim to abhor! Chase Harper’s case is Prime Example #1. You may not agree with his approach, but for his Constitutional rights to be trashed by the school (and by the radical Reinhart) is un-American. How does his opinion take away the “right to an education” for anyone as someone else wrote?
GLSEN gems:
“…your school might simply be a place where students, teachers and staff could learn more about diversity and acceptance. Regardless of what situation you find yourself in, the Day of Silence is an effort that can raise awareness on these issues, prompting people to talk and think about them…Or, if you want to get more LGBT history books into your library, you could position the Day of Silence as a strategy to demand greater inclusiveness.” (manual pg. 6)
“Some groups may wish to make the Day of Silence the centerpiece of a larger campaign to change their schools.” ( manual pg. 10)
“As you know, the problem that the Day of Silence Project seeks to change is the silence faced by LGBT people and their allies. In every school and community, this silence may manifest itself in more specific problems, such as the lack of LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies, the exclusion of LGBT people and history from the curriculum, the absence of support and advocacy services for LGBT youth, the lack of consequences for name-calling and many other problems. A problem is simply the situation that is wrong or needs to be changed.” (manual pg. 11)
4. WHO HAS THE POWER TO GIVE US WHAT WE WANT? (section heading pg. 12)
*This all goes far beyond protesting violence and harassment against groups of people and is an obvious call for the imposition of an over-arching political agenda using the power of the school leadership.
This section is particularly troubling (manual pg. 13):
6. WHO IS LIKELY TO STAND IN THE WAY OF OUR SOLUTION? WHY?
Next, your group should brainstorm a list of all of the people who are likely to stand in your way. This list should include teachers, counselors and administrators who’ve denied you their support in the past, or who’ve expressed bias against LGBT people. It should include peers, relatives, school board members and people in the community who have shown intolerance of LGBT people, or opposition to initiatives supporting LGBT students. The people who oppose your issue are known as, you guessed it, your opponents.
The new manual eliminates SOME of the over-the-top language but the core remains. For example, those that don’t fall into line can’t possibly have an honest disagreement with the DOS agenda, they are guilty of creating “institutional sexism, racism, heterosexism, ableism and classism.” There are still all the calls for schools to support this agenda uncontested. The DOS website has “lesson plans” for teachers and a “Top 10” list of how educators can “affirm” DOS…and encourages teachers to “dike out” in support of DOS, participate themselves and visibly display “literature” in classrooms. Most troubling is the 10th item on this list — it instructs educators to “use class time on the Day of Silence to write letters and e-mails to politicians and other officials on current issues of concern to LGBT communities.” These things can be found at the DOS website under “Sample and Articles.”
So…does anyone else want to fantasize that this is ALL about bullying?
susan–
Please define “troll.”
If what I have written has so little value, why respond at all? Why not take your own advice and stop reacting to my posts?
I’ll define troll for you DL.
Somebody who was banned from this site a while ago and can’t stand the fact that they’re under a microscope.
Nunja:
“Until this year, GLSEN’s DOS organizing manual was explicit in its intention — to promote homosexuality in schools unquestioned, unopposed, by getting school staff involved and at the exclusion of all other view points.”
===
“I have been challenged above to “put up or shut up” in regard to GLSEN’s recent manual overhaul.”
And yet NOTHING that followed this suggested in any way that other view points should be excluded. It was just a litany of things that you object to.
Now, I actually do believe that SOME other viewpoints should be excluded such as “kill all gay people” just as I would also exclude “kill all evangelicals”. And I imagine that you would agree with those viewpoints being excluded.
The areas where we would come into disagreement are those viewpoints like “homosexuality is unacceptable”. While you probably think that’s just fine, I know that translates to most students that gay kids are unacceptable and… well, someone is going to “unaccept” them.
If you’re honest, you will know that as well.
But by the way you poo-poo violence and bullying of gay kids in your posts above, I suspect you really don’t care if they are “unaccepted”. I doubt it has ever crossed your mind that maybe someone should stop some kid from being slammed into the lockers or beaten up on his way home or come under a barrage of “faggot” every day. Maybe you think that’s OK.
Nunja,
I’m not too familiar with GLSEN, so I personally don’t want to get into that side of the discussion. I do wonder if you would be in favor of allowing a student to come to school with a shirt declaring that “Christianity is Shameful.”
I’m also saddened that the ADF and other groups would want to use Chase Harper as a poster boy. Whether or not this boy’s speech was constitutionally protected, it’s pretty obvious that the kid’s intent was not to simply minister to other students in truth and love. He was trying to stir up trouble.
Brady, for the record even though you didn’t ask me I’d like to say I of course would have no problem with a “Christianity is shameful” t-shirt as long as Tinker remains the law of the land.
I also think its totally legit to question the sincerity of Chase Harper in that his is a message of “love” when it so clearly demonstrates vitriol and condemnation of those you seek to “help”
But Kendall, you don’t think a message that “homosexuals are shameful and they get what they deserve for being perverts,” which is the essence of Harper’s message could have been disruptive, or cause gay and lesbian students to feel intimidated to the point of impacting their education, given the history of intimidation and altercations at the school?
I think the court did follow Tinker which has two prongs: 1) limiting student speech that is disruptive, 2) limiting student speech that interferes with the rights of other students and their right to learn.
Background:
p2, Opinion : principle has to physically separate students in an altercation in 2003 over anti-gay incidents. Several weeks later, more altercations.
p4, Opinion: 1st day of Chad’s shirt, no record of school staff seeing shirt. No mention of altercations. Cannot assume they did or did not happen. Also, Chad was not told to remove the shirt this day.
p5, Opinion: 2nd day of shirt, teacher sees the shirt, and the off-task disruption it is causing; remembers the 2003 altercations, tells Chad to remove the shirt because he believes it will be disruptive. Principal agrees. Harper admits that his shirt HAD caused disruptions that day (allegedly “peaceful discussions”).
p7, Opinion: Spectre of further disruption: mention of call about possible parental activity to “do something” about DOS because the parent had “had it” with the school and DOS.
Interestingly, the court did not use the “Disruptiveness” prong of Tinker to reach its decision. I think they would have been right to because of the history of altercations at this school.
p21, Opinion: Several gay students had felt intimidated enough to withdraw from this HS because of anti-gay harassment. This climate infringed on the right of these students to be secure and left alone, and to receive an education (Tinker‘s second prong). Harper’s demeaning speech (the shirt) was contributory to the continued hostile environment that intimidated G/L students by telling them that they are shameful perverts.
Harper had many other ways to get his message across (e.g., “I do not support the the Day of Silence”). He chose to send an intimidating message. I don’t think it was an unconstitutional abridgement of his free speech to make him sit in the administrative area where his message could not demean students or disrupt their education. Harper was ~not~ suspended and cannot claim that the school took adverse action against him.
The quadrupling of support for DOS the next year (2005)is not germane to analysis of the environment at the school and the rationale of the administrators to avoid disruption and infringement of G/L student rights to an education in the previous year when Harper wore the shirt (2004).
Nunja,
Sorry. Nope.
“Just because I agree with nearly-universally accepted interpretations of Biblical morality…”
Sorry. You don’t.
United Church of Christ. Reformed Judaism. Metropolitan Community Church. Large percentage of Orthodox Judaism (issue not decided – debating gay marriage this year). Episcopal Church. Quakers (the Church of Friends). Universalist-Unitarian. Affirming and Reconciling congregations within Methodist, Luterans, and Presbyterians. Some American Baptists. All of those disagree with you.
You speak for Catholics, Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and some congregations within mainline churches. You may even speak for a majority of those who attend church regularly. But your position is far from “near-universally accepted”.
“Since we’re trading Bible verses..”
No, actually we aren’t trading Bible verses here. I was commenting on YOUR Bible verse which, incidentally, you did not address. You still are refusing to acknowledge that the story of the Woman Caught in Adultery was not about Jesus condemning sinners but instead of about Jesus refuting those who did condemn sinners.
Sorry, I didn’t write it. Nor did I bring it to the argument. But now that you brought it, you have to face the fact that the story condemns your behavior, not mine.
“You seem to be saying here that Jesus didn’t oppose sin, only the Pharisees did. That is a ridiculous claim, especially since the passage ends exactly (except for the one word I mistakely added) how I have presented.”
Read it again. Not just the last half sentence. In this story ONLY the Pharisees were seeking to condemn her. Jesus specifically said that he did not. You will notice that he didn’t say “I forgive you” but “Neither do I condemn you”.
To read this story as a “Jesus Opposes Sin” story takes some amazing twisting of thought. He made the very least of vague reference to “sin” when he told the woman to leave her particular sin.
You leave out a lot of word when you twist “I don’t condemn you. Go and sin no more” into “I … condemn… sin…”.
“I cannot personally “condemn” anyone for sin…”
And yet here you are doing just that.
You are offended at being compared to a Pharisee. If you don’t like the comparison, stop behaving that way.
last one was me.
If their were a history of anti-Christian harassment, two Christians had been forced to leave school because of the harassment, physical altercations and disruptive behavior… AND, big “and” here, Christians were truly a persecuted group of traditionally powerless individuals, not the majority influence in our culture, THEN, yes Tinker would support a principle telling someone to remove a “Christians are Shameful” t-shirt.
FYI, nunja..
Wikipedia definition of “Troll”
In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.
Anonymous – p2 key word in the opinion, anti-gay COMMENTS. Certainly I think if other students are being called “fags” and “cocksuckers” and other anti-gay inflammatory remarks are made that’s disruptive speech, there’s no argument here but that has nothing to do with a T-shirt. Just as for example it’d be disruptive to say “Bush is a fucking douchebag and anyone who supports him is a fucking idiot with no fucking clue” (more or less my opinion of bush, though not my opinion of his supporters) but not disruptive to wear a “John Kerry for President, vote the SMART choice” t-shirt, even though that t-shirt implies that Bush supporters are unintelligent.
“p4, Opinion: 1st day of Chad’s shirt, no record of school staff seeing shirt. No mention of altercations. Cannot assume they did or did not happen. Also, Chad was not told to remove the shirt this day.”
If its in the official record the judges have to evaluate it on its face, especially since the school never challenged the point.
“p5, Opinion: 2nd day of shirt, teacher sees the shirt, and the off-task disruption it is causing; remembers the 2003 altercations, tells Chad to remove the shirt because he believes it will be disruptive. Principal agrees. Harper admits that his shirt HAD caused disruptions that day (allegedly “peaceful discussions”).”
Did the teacher ask students to get back to work? I can’t speak for everyone and every school district but I know it was extremely common at my highschool for students to be “off task” at any particular time. That doesn’t speak to material and substantial disruption, that speaks to poor classroom control.
as for the “disruption” as has been noted it has to be a “material and substantial” disruption. It seems like there was a “tense” conversation and then nothing happened. To me that’s not a disruption, I again, used to speak (and not always pleasantly) with people between classes when I was in highschool, this is typical again).
“p21, Opinion: Several gay students had felt intimidated enough to withdraw from this HS because of anti-gay harassment. This climate infringed on the right of these students to be secure and left alone, and to receive an education (Tinker’s second prong). Harper’s demeaning speech (the shirt) was contributory to the continued hostile environment that intimidated G/L students by telling them that they are shameful perverts.”
First, the school did not use the word “perverts” or any individually demeaning language (name calling) every word by itself is not directly insulting. You’re correct about students being forced to withdraw from the highschool but as noted in the article I posted (which I’m aware was not part of the court record and cannot be part of the opinion) that issue was previously litigated.
Previous hostilities caused this. However, there is no reasonable way to conclude that CHASE HARPER’S excercise of speech in particular caused or created a hostile environment. If anything it could be argued the students that confronted him during the “tense verbal exchange” may have made threats against him for his speech (rather than informing a school official of their displeasure) and should have been investigated for their actions.
Please remember that its wise to give the benefit of the doubt to permitting the speech rather than supressing it. I’m trying to look at the speech in a manner most favorable to allowing the speech, and it seems that Chase Harper met the criteria under Tinker.
Thank you for the respectful and well thought out response though, I do certainly appreciate your opinion on this matter and I sympathize with your opinion.
“p7, Opinion: Spectre of further disruption: mention of call about possible parental activity to “do something” about DOS because the parent had “had it” with the school and DOS.”
sorry, I missed this. Chase Harper is simply not responsible for the action of that nutcase. Chase Harper is responsible for his own speech and as long as he’s relatively passive about it (he never interfered with students involved in the DoS as far as I know for example) I don’t think its regulable under Tinker. Note that in Tinker such things as Nazi symbols (certainly upsetting to Jewish students as well as gays who were also persecuted during the holocaust) were permissable.
Kendall, et al…
After two threads disputing and debating the minutia, let’s let it go.
Kendall, you think the ruling was flawed. Others do not. Clearly there is room for legitimate disagreement and eventually it will be resolved at a higher court.
So let’s stop debating over whether the circumstances of this one instance rises to a particular legal level as laid out in a previous suit. This isn’t moot court or a legal dispute site.
Thanks.
Kendall,
please clean up your language.
Thanks
my appologies Timothy, I’ll let it drop now.
🙂
thanks… you’re contribution is valued and I look forward to your viewpoint on other issues.
“I do wonder if you would be in favor of allowing a student to come to school with a shirt declaring that “Christianity is Shameful.”
It’s Constitutionally protected and should be. Sorry I won’t excite you with the kind of relativistic response you are used to on this site.
Timothy —
Please re-read my post and reconsider your response to my post where I explain my use of the verses on the adultress. I KNOW that Jesus was challenging the Pharisees!!! That is not up for debate. He ALSO used his example of mercy in order to show the adultress the Way and to “SIN NO MORE.” My point is (again) that the Left uses this verse in an attempt to shut off all debate (Just like they use tortured interpretations of Mat. 7:1-2, Luke 6:42) about moral issues. They use this story (usually it is Scripturally-illiterate people with a few choice verses in their breast pockets) to pretend that Jesus gave carte blanche to engage in any manner of sin, thus removing the right for one to take sides in a moral debate lest he be labeled a Pharisee.
The denominations you mention are fractured, small and/or disappearing precisely because most have outrightly rejected the plain meaning of the Bible, the nature of God(if they even still believe there is a God — something Unitarians will not affirm…and many census studies properly segregate Unitarians from Christians anyway), the divinity of Jesus, the Resurrection, etc. etc., etc. It’s becoming increasingly clear that if these folks even acknowledge Jesus, he’s become nothing more to them than an acheological Dr. Phil and their Bibles are to be consulted only when affirming a Leftist political agenda. I stand confidently by my position that my views are held nearly-universally by scholars, theologians and denominations that take the Bible seriously. I guess now you’ll quote some “Bishop” Spong, Jim Wallis or Barry Lynn for me.
“posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.”
So…where do my posts fall? Inflammatory, rude or offensive? I have used no profanity, insulted no one personally…so, how do I qualify? Additionally, I have not posted here today to “annoy,” I’m posting here because there is an interesting discussion. If a dissenting voice is too much for the gecko-skinned around here…well, they don’t value an open debate.
My excerpting of the GLSEN manual clearly illustrated my point that their aim were not purely to end bullying of certain students.
I demonstrated that GLSEN, with its push to get school administrations involved in support of ONE SIDE of a contentious issue, looks to shut down dissent by the power and intimidation of the state. Chase Harper is one case and the perfect example of a viewpoint being marginalized and punished simply for being expressed. The kid didn’t physically threaten anyone, nor as far as I know did he even approach anyone. The acceptance of GLSEN’s agenda by the school resulted in all other viewpoints being suppressed. We have evidence of what the practical impact on the rights of students that don’t agree with the GLSEN agenda. With what I have presented above, it is almost impossible to argue that what they are aiming for IS for schools to allow only one side of this debate.
The denominations you mention are fractured, small and/or disappearing precisely because most have outrightly rejected the plain meaning of the Bible, the nature of God
So, in other words, the First Amendment does not apply in your world, and religions are not free to interpret the “bible” in any way they choose. Or, wait, forgive me, the First Amendment only applies for those who agree with your interpretation of the “bible” – all others can be ignored.
The truth is Nunja, that no “religion” has a corner on the “truth” – in fact, I am willing to be that whatever “religion” you practice I would consider a heretical false, potentially Satanic, cult.
The question is Nunja, should I respect your right to make what I consider a horrible mistake that will threaten your eternal soul, or should I treat you the same way the “pro-family” movement treats gays and lesbians – by claiming to love them and then attempting to destroy their rights to live open, honest and authentic lives?
Nunja, personally I have zero problem with Chase’s shirt. If anything, it makes him look somewhat silly. (Does anyone remember those anit-fag shirts in the 80s?) However, in the case of the court case, I don’t know if the decision is wrong. The courts have repeatedly stated that the schools do have some regulated issues, and First Amendment rights can be limited in certain arenas. For example, the Post Office is a government setting, and an employee cannot come in wearing a shirt with a beer can on it. Since I work in the schools, I can tell you that even in public schools, they can regulate messages on shirts that are disruptive. I had a neo-Nazi student who would wear shirts with her husband’s picture on the front. Underneath it said “My husband killed for his race.” This was not appropriate, and it was not a free speech issue. Outside the classroom, fine. Inside, it can be a real problem. If a student in my class stood up and spouted anti-Bush speeches for no reason, they would be removed. I think that is legit. There is a place and time, and the courts have determined that. Personally Chase can look like a fool, but the schools are not forced to accept it (anymore than a shirt that says “Don’t feed the straight people”).
Nunja- this is really very simple. Whether or not all students should have equal rights is not a “debate” that should be had in a school. Gay students deserve not to be bullied or harrassed while they are trying to acquire an education- period. Acceptance of all students is the only message that should be allowed in a school because the school exists for all the students to learn. Any particular group of students should not have their learning experience interrupted by having to defend their right to exist and not be harrassed. Gay students are being bullied, assaulted, and driven out of schools. That is reality. The viewpoint that this needs to stop is indeed the only legitimate viewpoint that any school should endorse. Ever.
Randi said:
Not at all silly, in my opinion its clear Jesus was a schizophrenic gay man.
You just don’t stop do you? When you were typing that, didn’t anything in your experience tell you that it might not be the best idea to share that absurd little thought?
Timothy said:
After two threads disputing and debating the minutia, let’s let it go.
THANK YOU!
To that I would like to add only this then hopefully this thread can be abandoned. To sharonb, Boo, Aaron, Brady, et al – don’t feed the trolls and they will go away. It’s usually pretty easy to tell the difference between someone who just wants to beat their chest and antagonize for fun and those who want to actually debate matters civilly. The fact that most of the former seem to come here under the banner of Christian is very sad to me, but the answer is the same – just ignore them.
David
“the Left uses this verse in an attempt to shut off all debate”
I’m not “the Left” and nor is this the propper venue in which to discuss and dispute “the left”. If I criticized your reluctance to discuss the scriptural text you quoted, you don’t get to justify it by arguing about “the left”.
In your desire to find a place where Jesus condemned sin, you have to entirely ignore the message of the story and focus on three words. Though you may desire it to be so, the message of that story is NOT “sin no more”. The message is not even “and to sin no more”. The message of that story is to not condemn.
It is consistent with Jesus’ discussion of worrying about the beam in your eye before the mote in someone else’s. Or where Jesus said that what you use to measure someone else’s sin will be used by God to measure yours (for example, if you use Leviticus to measure a gay person’s sin, you’d better be living up to every rule in Leviticus including those dealing with menstuation and dietary laws).
In reading everything Jesus had to say about condemning others and all he had to say about waving the Law at others, all you found was three words to justify coming on here and trying to convict those here for what you think is their sin.
And these three words were taken out of context. The message Christ gave in that story is the opposite of the one you are seeing there. It’s sad that you have to distort the message of Christ to fit a dogma or justify a spirit of condemnation.
“The denominations you mention are fractured, small and/or disappearing…”
Irrelevant to the point which is that you claim near-universal agreement when you don’t have it.
You may think that these churches are not valid, and that’s fine. But don’t make claims you cannot support. And when proven wrong you don’t get to redefine your position to be that those who agree with you (denominations that “take the Bible seriously”) nearly-universally agree with you. What kind of nonsense is that?
The fact is, and remains, that your position is not “near-universal” – whether you stand confidently or not – and each year there are more congregations that find an anti-gay interpretation of scripture as a whole to be inconsistent with the rest of Jesus’ message. The number of people who believe what you believe decreases each year.
“If a dissenting voice is too much for the gecko-skinned around here..”
This sort of language will not be tolerated. It is inflamatory, rude, and offensive.
“With what I have presented above, it is almost impossible to argue that what they are aiming for IS for schools to allow only one side of this debate.”
I’m confused about this “other side”. Let me ask you a direct question:
Nunja, should the school take efforts to stop some kid from being slammed into the lockers or beaten up on his way home or come under a barrage of “faggot” every day?
Is there an “other side” to this issue?
And finally, you do seem to fit the definition of a troll in that it seems your purpose here is not to dialog or learn anything or provide anything. It doesn’t matter when you are proven wrong or your points are refuted. You don’t seem interested in conversing, just shouting. If – as it currently seems – you are only here to agitate, then you are a troll. If not, start behaving as someone who actually respects the views of others (even the gecko-skinned ones).
BTW — the Reinhart decision will be smacked down quicker than a horse fly at picnic. Even people like Tobias B. Wolf have condemned that judicial miscarriage…the First Amendment will be vindicated.
—-
I’m so very glad. I have thousands and thousands of people interested in wearing anti-religious wackos messages. . .
By the way, religious belief is chosen and personal. No one is interested in that message. And you have no “other view” on homosexuality – actually, you have NO view on the subject. It doesn’t involve you if your ‘religious’ belief has already taken care of it for you.
There is no proselytizing in public schools.
There IS no allegation Chase Harper did that. Just the opposite, there is evidence (an entire day’s worth) that he drew so little attention to himself that no one noticed his shirt for an entire school day although its not contested he wore it in the first place.
You can’t say it wasn’t “noticed.” It just means that no administrator or faculty intervened. If the school had a history of not protecting gay students, and a student deliberately wears an anti-gay message (and was also rather proselytizing as well in the public school) there is a difference here. Condemnation of a group of other students merely for their existence at a school is a lot different than protesting a war – especially when that same group of students have endured violence and bullying.
There are several high schools which courts have, unfortunately, upheld their right to censor student newspapers, particularly when they have written gay student-oriented feature stories. The excuse? They don’t want it to disrupt the mission of the school. If the courts uphold the right to censor speech in print, I doubt this message, specifically directed at a particular set of students required by law to attend the institution, is going to be allowed.
Well, Nunja Bidnet….
Whatever the Bible says, and how much of it you want to believe…is up to you. By law…you can follow it to YOUR heart’s content for yourself.
Same goes for any other believer here or where you are.
Ya know…Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in tissue or organ donation, but they aren’t called on the keep YOU from accepting such a donation, nor can they make the government do it for you either.
Autopsies and blood exchange or touching blood is a religious taboo.
However, now we know they are vital to us, don’t we?
Let’s just say, that all this hostility and discussion on the sins of homosexuality, is pretty well academic.
Gay children are subjects to their orientation and can’t do anything about it, nor is it their choice to be gay, no more than your choice in being heterosexual.
There is no choice in one’s orientation, so haranguing gay people over and over again, isn’t very productive.
Because whether a person is gay or not, doesn’t really affect you or anyone else at large, now does it?
Gay kids aren’t trying to make anyone else gay, because they can’t anyway. It’s impossible.
All gay kids want and need, is to be able to be HONEST about their orientation without being punished as if they’d committed a crime.
Otherwise EVERYTHING is disrupted, not just school life, but homelife and their relationships with their own families.
However, education is mandatory and free in this country. Gay kid’s parents are paying good money for their children’s educations too.
Gay kids are as smart, talented, attractive and kind to puppies as any other kid has the potential to be.
They are the apple of their grandparent’s eye and their folks like to see them at the school recital or playing on the ball field too.
All your Scriptue quoting and interpretations of the Bible doesn’t change those facts.
Applying 21st century social progress to Biblical standards, is as useful as putting a woman in the garage away from the family because she has her period.
You could call that people do that, and women could live in the garage for a few days…but, exactly WHAT would be the point of that?
What IS so wonderful about throwing heterosexual privilege at a gay kid?
To show how compassionate heteros really are? How smart and special?
What IS so special about being heterosexual? I’m heterosexual and I don’t see how being disdainful to gay people, makes straight people better people.
I have harbored many suspicions about the lack of women’s participation in the writing of the Bible and the dispensation of it’s tenets.
Yeah, I said it.
Only MEN are endowed with holy enlightenment?!
Girl PULEEZE!
It’s a new day, it’s a new century. Some of us are running with wings on our feet to a more enlightened future, and you seem to be lurching FAR behind with the weight of the Bible and your conceit on your back.
You glory in the underestimation of your symbiotic gay family.
And boys like Chase Harper can go on wearing his shirt, talking in Scripture what he thinks he knows about gay people.
But after he puts his Bible to bed everyday-there is always gonna be a gay kid that outclasses him.
This is the best time for Harper to learn, that being hetero isn’t virtue, or character, nor is how much Scripture you’ve memorized.
It’s how he treats another human being and what THEIR deeds are towards him as well.
Kinda hard to reconcile spewing his lines, at who he can identify as gay at school.
But he’s going to have a time of it if a potential employer is gay, and Harper REALLY needs that job.
The put downs are easy now, but in the real world, we can accept that changes come, change is inevitable, and things we were taught about people who were different from us aren’t the bad things originally thought.
That’s GOOD news, Nunja, that gay kids are good kids, who can grow into talented, compassionate adults.
And so…isn’t that cool?
Regan said:
Applying 21st century social progress to Biblical standards, is as useful as putting a woman in the garage away from the family because she has her period.
The cultural norms reflected by scripture may be frozen in time, but the message certainly is not. There is no need to trash Christianity in order to rebuff the comments of someone like the poster whose current name is Nunja Bidnet. Many people are Christian in name only, but that shouldn’t reflect badly on those who are not.
Once again, can I encourage people to stop responding to a troll? Why is it so difficult to let it go? Responses just make you a participant in their bad behavior.
David
I have been challenged above to “put up or shut up” in regard to GLSEN’s recent manual overhaul. Please see below. There are excerpts directly from the manual…
I was just on GLSEN’s website and downloaded the current version of the manual in PDF format, and I can’t find any of the specific examples you cited there. Not one. In particular, I don’t see any section of text whatsoever that can even be remotely construed as an exercise in building an enemies list. It’s just not there.
Now, it’s likely the manual has undergone multiple revisions. What I need, is a copy of that manual, The Entire Manual from a reliable source that contains the text you’ve quoted.
By reliable source, I mean a source that I can trust hasn’t altered the original text. That would exclude any source for example, that also cites Paul Cameron.
Of course, you may not want to provide that document, because obviously what I’m looking for is the context of the text you’ve cited. Specifically, I want to see the complete text of that section 6, “Who Is Likely To Stand In The Way Of Our Solution?” I have a…hunch…there’s more to it.
Can anyone here give me a pointer to it? A good one?
David,
There are people here who are not Christian, and have views about Christianity that may or may not correspond to yours. I notice, though, that when someone expresses a view that does not mention the way you approach Christianity, you seem to take offense and run to the defense of the religion.
Other have opinions that are just as valid as yours, and they should be able to express those opinions without feeling like you are automatically going to take offense to them. Maybe you didn’t like what Randi had to say about Jesus. Maybe you disagree with what Regan said. But your disagreement does not have to translate into offense for them having expressed how they feel about the subject (certainly Regan was not trying to “trash Christianity”!). Please take that into account because there’s no reason to expect that anyone should withold their opinions because you are quick to offense. With all due respect, it is more offensive to expect them to hold their tongues.
Robis said:
There are people here who are not Christian, and have views about Christianity that may or may not correspond to yours.
Quite right and I have been energetic in my defense of everyone’s right to their own faith, or to no faith at all. But civil, respectful discourse demands that we honor each other and our beliefs. As a Christian, I may be more sensitive to remarks demeaning Christianity, but then that’s normal. I’m sure a Jewish poster would be more sensitive to such comments about Judaism and so on. Because I understand how it feels to have my beliefs marginalized (and I think we all understand being marginalized in general), I try to maintain an atmosphere of respect, or at the very least neutrality, among all beliefs represented here. The fact is, there are few comments slandering any belief except Christianity, so there will be more instances when someone is called on for doing so.
My comment to Regan was a reminder that there is no reason to insult the beliefs of a large segment of posters in order to counter the comments of someone like Nunja Bidnet. Doing so results in exactly what NB seems to have wanted to accomplish. I think Regan is perceptive enough to understand that.
Randi is a different matter. She has been warned many, many times to curb her outbursts and rude behavior. Her comment was insulting and has no place here. She knew that and still posted it.
I notice, though, that when someone expresses a view that does not mention the way you approach Christianity, you seem to take offense and run to the defense of the religion.
Does not mention the way I approach Christianity? Omitting a view and what we are talking about here are two entirely different matters. I respond only when I think the average person of faith coming to XGW would feel it was not a safe environment. XGW is not a free-for-all like an “us vs. them” political board. There are plenty of those around and you can bring up just about anything there regardless of how it makes the other person feel. That isn’t our purpose.
Please take that into account because there’s no reason to expect that anyone should withhold their opinions because you are quick to offense.
Absolutely not. But there are some opinions or comments that should be withheld for the reasons stated above. Self-restraint is always a component of mutual respect. It is also necessary for posting here, as is having references to back up statements of fact, etc. By far most posters abide by these guidelines and treat each other decently; those that habitually ignore them end up like raj and dalea.
David
Please do explain how what Regan said was an insult to Christianity. She certainly said nothing about Christianity in general and she certainly didn’t say anything demeaning to Christianity. She simply compared one set of moral standards (Biblical) with another set of moral standards (Native American). That is why I am suggesting that you seem to be quick to offense.
This isn’t the first time I’ve noted it, even if it is the first time I’m mentioning it. You’ve done it before. It seems to me, though, that anyone should be able to speak their mind without feeling like you will probably take offense. If there is an us versus them vibe going on, it seems to me that it is coming from the person who finds offense where none is meant–not from the person sincerely offering comments on how they view the issue.
*** Not reponding to anyone in particular.Just a comment, as we’re uncomfortably noticing a trend of late***Ya know guys, but these religious spats are becoming quite tiresome. They clog up these posts with volumes of bumph, and (I’d suggest) have no hope of resolution here; even if they were in anyway useful to the topic — something we’ve failing to notice.It should be a given that any group of people will hold to different faiths, traditions and beliefs. Nobody should need to feel personally attacked over holding those faiths, and nobody should feel personally obliged to “get it” when they just do not.The input about religion is very useful when it helps us all understand what an exgay group etc means when they say something in religious shorthand eg “By the Great Commission it it meant…”. You cannot discuss exgay and not come crashing into religion, but don’t really want or need to discuss one’s own faiths, traditions and beliefs. We certainly do need to understand where people other than yourselves are coming from. I’m also glad to know when same said p.o.t.y. display hypocritical or shallow attitudes about their faith as they apply it to gay men and women.In the future, rather than responding could we perhaps restrain ourselves to something like
If someone is particulalrly troubling you, personally, about personal matters like faith, email the editor and let them deal with it.All right, that’s all we have to say 😐
David, you have to really look at what I said.
And remind yourself of the directives of the culture then and how these proscriptions are applied NOW.
I’m pointing out EXACTLY why there is disrespect for the way those who say they are Christian, treat gay people in particular.
I’m not criticizing Christianity, but those Christians who are selective in the way they cooperate or DON’T with everyday laws and social expectations.
It DOESN’T make sense, especially to someone like me who is making an observation, not a criticism.
I try very hard to be clear on that. I don’t appreciate what Chase Harper did, because as someone pointed out, kids are going to process something THAT HARSH very differently, and not well.
And with gay kids, that statement is about their PERSONHOOD, not what they do in school performance or social cooperation.
There IS a strong pattern of religious harshness against gay people especially, regardless of the good they do.
But there is little harshness against religious people, no matter what they do.
But once there is some criticism thrown back, the results of that criticism don’t carry at all the same consequences to that person.
Communicating one’s needs and honest social interaction is vital to a young gay person.
The need for a religious person to criticize a gay person isn’t vital to THEM.
The main reason being: one’s religous path is chosen, and one’s sexual orientation is not.
Arguing that is beside the point, it’s not a matter of faith.
One isn’t so harmed by self restraint of harsh, selective and unsolicited criticism, as a gay is in hearing it and also not being able to disclose their identity without such criticism.
So, it lands on the Chase Harper’s of the world to understand EXACTLY what treating others as you would want to be treated really means.
It’s not just words going in one direction.
He knows his words hurt. He does it because he has no expectation or likelihood of being hurt in return.
Sometimes it just comes down to this: what religious people think of gay people isn’t news.
And saying so constantly gets old and it’s negative and hurtful in ways that don’t help anything and foster pain and hostility.
So, eventually a young Christian like Harper will have to learn, am I really doing any good here, or am I just saying something for the sake of saying it because I WANT to hurt this group and I can?
If it’s the latter, than the message of Christian faith in compassion is lost, isn’t it?
no it’s not. HE forgot something.Anyone seeing the point of such discussion, here, now, is duly warned that we have invented a time machine.You will be transported back 1681 years to spend 3 months banging on about the subject with 300 bishops.After that time you will emerge with a series of suppression orders, but no actual resolution of the issues in question.Don’t laugh, it’s been done before. (no, not the bit about the time machine).
Sorry regan, that wasn’t us answering your final question. It follows on from our last post 🙂
grantdale at April 28, 2006 01:26 PM
That sounds like good advice.
The one exception, however, is when it is not an inter-family squabble but is relevant to the theme of the thread. For example:
Acceptable: “Joe Televangelist misquoted scripture when he said “Blessed are the meek except gay people cuz their nasty”.”
Not Acceptable: “Joe Televangelist can keep his quotes. Jesus was a myth and all Christians are homophobes.”
(and I personally promise to be better at not feeding the trolls)
I understood that, darlings.
Whattup down under?
:0P
Yep Timothy, I think that would come under “display hypocritical or shallow attitudes about their faith as they apply it to gay men and women“.Of course we cannot avoid religion. An understanding of exgay would be crippled without that discussion, and we’ve enjoyed your explanations etc in the past. It’s more about those times when one could almost intervene with a “Excuse me… but this post is NOT about you two/three/?” etc.—Regan, you mean “howya’go’in?” don’t you? (Alright, I promise not to talk in Strine for you.)Works is hell on earth — we’re both flat out, like a lizard drinking. Crumbs, rilly karn elpmi’self can oi? Ho’p things are good wi’yoo too 🙂
Robis said:
She simply compared one set of moral standards (Biblical) with another set of moral standards (Native American).
If that comment involved something Native American, then I truly did miss the point. Can you point that out?
It seems to me, though, that anyone should be able to speak their mind without feeling like you will probably take offense.
It depends on what “speak their mind” entails. Certain things are not acceptable, which is why some people have been banned (fortunately, very few). DL Foster spoke his mind, raj spoke his mind, dalea, etc.
I would and have given the same reaction if the belief involved was not Christianity. I’m not going to say I am completely objective, as I think that is impossible, but I do try to apply the rules evenly. The simple fact is that, because of it’s intertwining with the ex-gay issue, Christianity is usually at the center of these kinds of comments.
In the future, I may take gratedale’s advice and give a brief, generic response but I suspect that will be greeted with inquiries for more detail on why the comment “crossed the religion blog line”.
If someone is particularly troubling you, personally, about personal matters like faith, email the editor and let them deal with it.
As you said, we aren’t going to get away with not ever discussing faith. It is not a dominant theme here but it is part of the ex-gay equation and it’s also an integral part of the lives of many posters. The best we can do is ask that common sense and self-restraint be exercised in order to provide a safe, civil atmosphere for everyone.
Posted by Timothy Kincaid at April 28, 2006 02:05 PM
Timothy, excellent clarification. That sums up the issue perfectly for me.
Regan, in the spirit of trying to reduce, not expand the discussion on this issue, feel free to email me at david@exgaywatch.com if you want to talk. I know you are a sweet person, perhaps I misunderstood what you meant. NB made it hard to keep cool in that thread.
David
grantdale said:
It’s more about those times when one could almost intervene with a “Excuse me… but this post is NOT about you two/three/?” etc.
So you think we can keep that from happening, eh? Those threads are not restricted to religious discussions 😉
David
Actually David, I think you mean can we keep that from happening 🙂 Nah. Not a hope. Cannot fight human nature.But it normally doesn’t degenerate into an ugly and embarrassing bunfight, and is usually the best signal that we’ve all run out of steam… New Post!
Sounds like Chase Harper’s parents should take far more responsibility for their son’s problem. They obviously are the influence (because of their extremist fundamentalist belief in this kind of dogma) behind his rant at the high school. His parents sound like fundamentalist Christian fascists who have no regard for or tolerance of diversity unless it falls within their narrow bigoted view of truth. They probably will turn around (like the t.v. Evangelists typically do) and say that they are being persecuted by “activist judges” who are chaning the constitution. It all depends upon who’s ox is being gored in this situation.
Thank the God of Heaven that we are protected from people like Chase Harper’s family or their Church because of the U.S. constitution. If it weren’t for that God help us all. We’d probably be fighting for our very lives because of medieval attitudes like these. It is so sickening to me to see the virulent hate in this kids eyes. It’s pathetic and sad. His parents ought to have their parental rights revoked for abusing him in such a way through teaching him to abuse others as he has been doing. Truth will prevail and their “day of truth” which is in all actuality “the day of lies” will come to naught. We shall overcome! 🙂
Thanks David, I understand you now. Ya know what bro’, It ain’t no thing.
I’m just trying to make sure I’m not disrespecting a person of or a person’s religious feelings.
Or that my opinion was taken the wrong way as such.
And incidentally, I wasn’t expressing a NA viewpoint, but just working to come to a logical conclusion about this kid Harper, and who put him up to his expression and why.
Sometimes we need to step away from what can easily be emotionally contentious and take a colder calculation to it.
We’re witnessing the intense reactions those of strong Muslim faith are willing to do and what they are capable of.
This world is very small now. Such complete alliance to Islam, also shows a people who have moved from their traditional lands.
They are in Europe, marching in the streets-knowing that those countries on that continent are FREE.
And as they increase in numbers, those who are aligned with Islam are demanding their neighbors adhere to Islamic cultural standards.
So, why did they go where the culture is so vastly different and so free?
Why do they complain about Western mores influencing their children?
Exactly.
We can see now where religious power and control over less informed populations will eventually implode.
Christians would not do any better by this country in having so much political influence either.
We see now who they are willing to make scapegoats and who they’d ‘disappear’ if given the opportunity.
This Harper, is white and male and presumably hetero, or otherwise closeted.
And so are the higher ups in Christian leadership or at least visibility in America.
He knows he’s set, and little sacrifice will be made or expected of him.
They don’t like sharing this country with who they want to continue to believe are ‘unworthy’ and they wax nostalgic for the days when they didn’t have to.
I was there too.
It’s obviously not about a stand up, civilized, cooperative differences.
It’s about the other having to not be here…as if dead.
I”m not having that. And I know very well why someone like say…Alan Chambers or a Stephen Bennett…or a DL Foster, avoids women like me.
Regan said:
And incidentally, I wasn’t expressing a NA viewpoint, but just working to come to a logical conclusion about this kid Harper, and who put him up to his expression and why.
Well that makes me feel better. After Robis mentioned Native American I looked all over your post to see if I missed something.
Christians would not do any better by this country in having so much political influence either.
I have no desire for anything remotely resembling a theocracy. I remember the horror I felt during the 1988 presidential campaign when Pat Robertson was running for president. The “moral majority” atmosphere was coming back into vogue and the thought that he might actually win brought chills. I have no problem with a president who draws strength from his faith, but Pat was clearly out to “Christianize” the government.
It is my belief that God gave people free will – it’s not our place to take that away even if we could.
David
Dear Lord, you people really haven’t a clue of what God has been trying to tell us for over two centuries now. LOVE!
Dumbasses.
Umm, two centuries, Derreck, or two millennia?
Also, Derreck, please identify who is, and who is not, expressing a message of divine love. And please explain the reasons for your opinions.
Drive-by wisecracks are hardly an appropriate means of expressing “love.”