Child suspended for his religious beliefs

Recommended Videos

Serge A. Storms

New member
Oct 7, 2009
641
0
0
I think I can see some of the confusion here. When I was referring to "Modern Christianity" in post 660 (and maybe one or two other posts) I was actually referring to all Christians in the modern era. Keeping up with this new definition for "Modern Christianity" and the actual population of Christians in the modern era can get confusing with such long posts.
 

joystickjunki3

New member
Nov 2, 2008
1,887
0
0
Wasn't it decided in a Supreme Court ruling that schools had no right to stop children from wearing certain articles of clothing?
 
Jun 6, 2009
1,885
0
0
joystickjunki3 said:
Wasn't it decided in a Supreme Court ruling that schools had no right to stop children from wearing certain articles of clothing?
Maybe in America. But in Canada, if you don't take off any non religious headwear in class, you can get a nice 1 hour visit with your VP.

[small]I CALL BULLSHIT![/small]
 

Corpse XxX

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,635
0
0
Damn.. I just converted from Atheism to Pastafarian.. I work at sea also, so this suits me very well.. and i love spagetti and pasta..
 

joystickjunki3

New member
Nov 2, 2008
1,887
0
0
BrotherhoodOfSteel said:
joystickjunki3 said:
Wasn't it decided in a Supreme Court ruling that schools had no right to stop children from wearing certain articles of clothing?
Maybe in America. But in Canada, if you don't take off any non religious headwear in class, you can get a nice 1 hour visit with your VP.

[small]I CALL BULLSHIT![/small]
Bummer.

But this kid is in North Carolina, right? That entitles him to the ruling of the Supreme Court.
 

Mako SOLDIER

New member
Dec 13, 2008
338
0
0
Serge A. Storms said:
cuddly_tomato said:
Serge A. Storms said:
1) Now that is not true. I've clearly said on at least half a dozen occasions that anyone can call themselves a Christian and that only Christians that actually follow the Old Testament should be against homosexuality.

2) I could see where you're coming from, except that it's clearly stated as the word of God that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Many people, including your definition of "Modern Christians" don't agree with large portions of the Bible, but as I've mentioned before, that's discounting a very large portion of Christians that don't ignore the Old Testament and don't ignore the specific parts condemning homosexuality. With your logic, the vast majority of Christians are "Modern Christians" using your definition for that term, which is what I've disputed from the beginning. And as far as "leaps" go, making the leap that homophobia is more a result of age than religion is a huge leap in itself. Do the red states contain more old, homophobic people? Is Vermont packed with hip young "Modern Christians?" That's making a massive assumption.
1) Yep. It's true. And you are doing it now. You are telling other people what they have to believe. This wasn't even about homosexuality until you blurbed in with "and Christians hate gays!".

2) Being clearly stated in the Bible does not mean that anyone has to take it as the absolute literal truth. Even if it did that does not mean that people who believe it feel the need to push that belief onto other people. I am pretty solid in my beliefs (which are not Christian), that doesn't mean I feel any need to go around telling everyone else what they can and can't do. Nowhere does it say in the Bible "Thou shalt go mind everyone elses business for them". The only kind of people who do that are people with a massively over inflated opinion of themselves who see themselves as some kind of messiah or saviour... Sounds strangely familiar... And...

Oh for the love of... this isn't rocket science.

I HATE techno music.
My dad is homophobic.
HIS dad was racist.
HIS dad wouldn't let his wife out of the kitchen.
HIS mother was a sufferagette and wasn't even allowed to vote.
HER father thought that trains were the work of the devil and that people going over 5mph on Stephensons Rocket would die.

Yes. The current hostility to gays in the west is one of backwards culture from the older generations who have yet to die. It takes longer for cultures to evolve in rural areas, hence the reason "red states" are slower to change to meet the differences in the new world.
1) You said that I said that everyone that calls themselves Christian must be against gays, and that is completely false. I said that you had to believe in the Old Testament to believe that God is against gays, and that would be the minimum.

2) I didn't say that it did, I said that, according to the Bible, you should believe in the Bible (which is a logical fallacy, one that I didn't invent, that's what it actually says), and the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong several times (I should also point out that it was not under any uncertain terms, the Bible explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong, you don't have to believe that the entire thing is meant to be taken literally to see that it's a direct statement). And many, many people think and vote as Christian people, not just a few people with inflated opinions of themselves, which goes back to you not recognizing that many people take the Bible seriously.

As far as "red states" being slower to change, that doesn't appear to be related to age alone, and what of states such as Georgia with large cities and a population of minorities and immigrants quickly becoming the majority? If this really is just an issue with some parts of society being slower to change than others, you would think a massive infusion of people from other cultures would change the political landscape some.
I think we have to look at anything asserted in the bible in terms of context as this particular issue is always misconstrued as being a matter of morality. Homosexuality was as far as I recall mostly condemned in terms of the sodomites (or at least they were essentially the reference point for the rule). That would have made sense at the time, because it channeled reproductive urges into a non-reproductive act (in a time when the death rate was so high that people needed to keep the population up, thereby jeapordising the survival of the species. It made sense to condemn homosexuality in those circumstances. If the bible were written these days, with our massive overpopulation issues, I would imagine that it would possibly encourage homesexuality as a casual alternative to reproduction.

So, to hopefully play mediator, yes the bible does state that homosexuality is wrong, but probably for practical reasons and therefore it is no longer relevant today.

Of course this probably doesn't in any way address the point of the debate, but I'm too tired to get hugely involved in a debate(got sooo little sleep last night) but felt the need to contribute.
 

Mako SOLDIER

New member
Dec 13, 2008
338
0
0
OT: It all seems a bit silly really. If a school has a uniform policy, then that's it, end of, you eier abide by the policy or you apply to a different school. If the school doesn't have a uniform policy, it's up to any individual what they wear, unless it's deliberately inflammatory. If someone wants to look like a pirate, so what, they'll look like an idiot, or they'll pull it off and be some kind of alternative hero. The novelty would die down and it'd no longer be disruptive. It's no different to someone dying their hair green or something really.
 

Tonimata

New member
Jul 21, 2008
1,890
0
0
Seriously now, what the hell is up with a religion that believes in Spaghetti monsters?! I mean, Cthulu I can sort of understand

BUT SPAGHETTI MONSTERS?!
 

FallenRainbows

New member
Feb 22, 2009
1,396
0
0
cuddly_tomato said:
McCa said:
cuddly_tomato said:
McCa said:
cuddly_tomato said:
Serge A. Storms said:
gigastrike said:
Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.
You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.
Yes that is silly. Fortunately, no actual religion says that. To boil down Christianity into that sentence is frankly ludicrous.
Then what would you boil it down to? (serious question not flame-bait)
In all honesty, I couldn't. I am not a Christian and most of my exposure to Christianity has either come from the crappy school I attended, which taught me nothing, or from being hectored by insane fundamentalists who would scream that I would be on my way to Hell if I didn't give the all merciful Almighty applause every Sunday (which sounded a bit oxymoronic... minus the oxy). I do know enough to know that "invisible man in the clouds" doesn't even come close, and is really being used as a sarcastic jibe when it is spoken in that manner.
That does seem to be the overall idea... I went to a Christian school and in short. There an invisible omnipotent being in the sky that makes everything... that is essentially the fundamentals of it, add in talking bushes (that are on fire) and you have a somewhat insane ideal which if it was suggested in this age would be dismissed as much as a flying spaghetti monster.
To be honest that sounds more like an issue with your teachers than with the religion itself. Don't forget in this day and age some individuals with towering intellects believe in religions of all shapes and sizes. Invisible -man- in the sky sounds silly, particularly with commandments and rules and wotnot (would an omnipotent being really give a shit if I coveted an ox? gimme a break!). But a vast and infinite consciousness without beginning or end, without the boundaries of space and time that we are restrained by, that didn't so much 'create in 7 days then rest' but continually creates each second of existence, because we are all part of it, not seperated from it... then it sounds more plausable to me because it touches on my own feelings and experiences.

Talking you or I about adultery and Adam and Eve sounds ridiculous because of who we are and were we come from. Monotheist religions haven't really moved with the times, and as a result can look a bit silly.
Now that sounds much more... reasonable,and I can certainty see your that point of view. However I do not see creating as person or an entity but rather just a force of sorts, like death.
 

Stillve

New member
Sep 19, 2009
122
0
0
I support the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, (at least the controversy they bring) but I'm not about to go 'Pastafarian'.
 

Serge A. Storms

New member
Oct 7, 2009
641
0
0
Mako SOLDIER said:
Serge A. Storms said:
cuddly_tomato said:
Serge A. Storms said:
1) Now that is not true. I've clearly said on at least half a dozen occasions that anyone can call themselves a Christian and that only Christians that actually follow the Old Testament should be against homosexuality.

2) I could see where you're coming from, except that it's clearly stated as the word of God that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Many people, including your definition of "Modern Christians" don't agree with large portions of the Bible, but as I've mentioned before, that's discounting a very large portion of Christians that don't ignore the Old Testament and don't ignore the specific parts condemning homosexuality. With your logic, the vast majority of Christians are "Modern Christians" using your definition for that term, which is what I've disputed from the beginning. And as far as "leaps" go, making the leap that homophobia is more a result of age than religion is a huge leap in itself. Do the red states contain more old, homophobic people? Is Vermont packed with hip young "Modern Christians?" That's making a massive assumption.
1) Yep. It's true. And you are doing it now. You are telling other people what they have to believe. This wasn't even about homosexuality until you blurbed in with "and Christians hate gays!".

2) Being clearly stated in the Bible does not mean that anyone has to take it as the absolute literal truth. Even if it did that does not mean that people who believe it feel the need to push that belief onto other people. I am pretty solid in my beliefs (which are not Christian), that doesn't mean I feel any need to go around telling everyone else what they can and can't do. Nowhere does it say in the Bible "Thou shalt go mind everyone elses business for them". The only kind of people who do that are people with a massively over inflated opinion of themselves who see themselves as some kind of messiah or saviour... Sounds strangely familiar... And...

Oh for the love of... this isn't rocket science.

I HATE techno music.
My dad is homophobic.
HIS dad was racist.
HIS dad wouldn't let his wife out of the kitchen.
HIS mother was a sufferagette and wasn't even allowed to vote.
HER father thought that trains were the work of the devil and that people going over 5mph on Stephensons Rocket would die.

Yes. The current hostility to gays in the west is one of backwards culture from the older generations who have yet to die. It takes longer for cultures to evolve in rural areas, hence the reason "red states" are slower to change to meet the differences in the new world.
1) You said that I said that everyone that calls themselves Christian must be against gays, and that is completely false. I said that you had to believe in the Old Testament to believe that God is against gays, and that would be the minimum.

2) I didn't say that it did, I said that, according to the Bible, you should believe in the Bible (which is a logical fallacy, one that I didn't invent, that's what it actually says), and the Bible states that homosexuality is wrong several times (I should also point out that it was not under any uncertain terms, the Bible explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong, you don't have to believe that the entire thing is meant to be taken literally to see that it's a direct statement). And many, many people think and vote as Christian people, not just a few people with inflated opinions of themselves, which goes back to you not recognizing that many people take the Bible seriously.

As far as "red states" being slower to change, that doesn't appear to be related to age alone, and what of states such as Georgia with large cities and a population of minorities and immigrants quickly becoming the majority? If this really is just an issue with some parts of society being slower to change than others, you would think a massive infusion of people from other cultures would change the political landscape some.
I think we have to look at anything asserted in the bible in terms of context as this particular issue is always misconstrued as being a matter of morality. Homosexuality was as far as I recall mostly condemned in terms of the sodomites (or at least they were essentially the reference point for the rule). That would have made sense at the time, because it channeled reproductive urges into a non-reproductive act (in a time when the death rate was so high that people needed to keep the population up, thereby jeapordising the survival of the species. It made sense to condemn homosexuality in those circumstances. If the bible were written these days, with our massive overpopulation issues, I would imagine that it would possibly encourage homesexuality as a casual alternative to reproduction.

So, to hopefully play mediator, yes the bible does state that homosexuality is wrong, but probably for practical reasons and therefore it is no longer relevant today.

Of course this probably doesn't in any way address the point of the debate, but I'm too tired to get hugely involved in a debate(got sooo little sleep last night) but felt the need to contribute.
I don't doubt that some of those versus refer to sodomites more generally, but versus such as Leviticus 18:22 state plainly that "God" hates homosexuality specifically. Like I've said before, I don't agree with that statement at all, but it's also a very direct statement on homosexuality specifically. Might it have actually been written for the purpose of preventing non-reproductive sex? Absolutely, I wouldn't doubt that one bit, but for the many people that take the Bible seriously, it's purely a statement that God hates the gay.
 

Jman1236

New member
Jul 29, 2008
528
0
0
While I think that separation of chruch and state is BS, I think that there is a limit to it, this would be one of them.
 

Novan Leon

New member
Dec 10, 2007
187
0
0
Serge A. Storms and cuddly_tomato, I'm coming in late to your discussion so I don't have the full picture, but I would like to clarify a few things.

Christians and Homosexuality

First, the Christian banner is one that covers many different beliefs and many different people, and it's a banner that many people claim for themselves, regardless of how applicable it is to them. That said, I don't know any Christians that deny the validity of the Old Testament. Some explain it away or justify it in different ways, but I'm not aware of a single group that denies it completely.

Second, there are some organized Christian denominations that allow and condone homosexuality, but you'll find that these organizations are largely condemned by the rest of the Christian community. These organizations also tend to be the larger ones with non-Protestant origins, and are debatably more 'organization' than 'Christian'. The acceptance of homosexuality within the Christian community should be seen as the exception rather than the norm.

Third, I'll tell you about my beliefs and those of my fellow Christians which I associate with. We consider ourselves to be 'true' Christians, not aligned with a particular parent denomination or organization, and devoted solely to the Bible and to Christ himself. There are a lot of us in America but I'm not sure how we would count up against the large numbers of Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, etc, not to mention the non-Protestant denominations.

Our stance on homosexuality is that it's a sin, just like greed, lust, hate, jealousy, etc. These sins result in us taking actions that are sinful such as stealing, sleeping with another man's wife, killing someone, etc. We all have these sins, and we're all filled with these desires, there's nothing we can change about that on our own. It's the same with homosexuality.

Homosexuality is a sin that lives in you just like the ones I mentioned above. The best we can do, homosexuals included (since they're no different from any other kind of sinner), is to exercise control and not act out on our sinful desires. This includes not stealing when we want something, not sleeping with a married woman, not taking revenge on someone we hate, and not having a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender.

There's no way we could hate someone who was homosexual any more than we could hate any other sinner (and we're all sinners!). What we do hate is when people demand that we accept homosexuality and the homosexual lifestyle with open arms. We're against the sin of homosexuality and those who practice homosexuality freely the same as we're against those who commit adultery and those who lie, cheat and steal.

Pirate Kid and the Definition of Religion

Back on the topic of the kid who dressed as a pirate and claimed it was his religion, obviously this kid is either total nuts or trying to get away with something. Even if he was completely sincere, there needs to be a serious discussion about what can and cannot be considered a valid religion (that's a loaded subject if I ever saw it). If we let something like this slide, I could just as well go around stabbing people with pencils and claim it's a part of my religion.

You could make the argument that Jihad is an important part of the Islamic religion, but does this mean we should tolerate Jihad? There has to be an objective moral standard which we can agree on or else anything and everything becomes valid and morally permissible.
 

irishdelinquent

New member
Jan 29, 2008
1,088
0
0
I'm sorry, but there is one issue that I have with the fact that the kid is claiming he was expelled for his "religious" beliefs. Now I have no problem with the fact that the kid is a Pastafarian (in fact I was recently converted by this very thread), but the issue is that he's trying to exploit a loophole. Anyone can say that they're doing something in school that they're not supposed to (read: wear different clothes, take days off, disrupt classes) and use the religion excuse. However, this is the issue I have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_religions#P

Pastafarianism is considered fictional. It is not recognised by the government as an official religion. That is solely where my issue with this lies. I do not think that it's fair to claim that you were discriminated for non-existant religious beliefs. I fully support aetheism and the FSM, but the claim that he was discriminated based on religion does not hold up for me, at least based on the laws of North America.
 

Nickolai77

New member
Apr 3, 2009
2,843
0
0
This thread appears to have turned into a debate about Christianity and homosexuality. Well, here are my 2 cents.

I only consider something "wrong" if it infringes on the various freedom's of others.For example, we have a right to own property. Stealing is taking away property from someone else without consent, and therefore infringes on the victims right to own property, therefore stealing is wrong.
Internet censorship could also be considered wrong, for a number of reason's. One could argue that we have a right to knowledge, or that accessing politically deviant or indeed sexually deviant material is not not harming the right's of others and therefore there is nothing wrong with it. Likewise for homosexuality, if it's a consensual act between two people, no ones rights have been comprised, so it's all fine and dandy.

The only real justification for being against homosexuality is if your religion prohibits it. However those against homosexuality on religious grounds are making a number of assumptions.

1) That they are interpreting the text correctly
2) That the holy text as a whole actually relates to God's will
3) That they are following the right religion
4) That the God in question actually cares
5) That the God in question is the source of all morality and should be followed
6) That God exists at all.

It is quite hard, perhaps impossible, to logically and rationally move from the first assumption to the final one. This is probably why many modern theist's resort to "faith" thereby implying that they can't rationally justify their belief's, but are going to hold onto them regardless.
 

The Kangaroo

New member
Feb 24, 2009
1,481
0
0
Novan Leon said:
You could make the argument that Jihad is an important part of the Islamic religion, but does this mean we should tolerate Jihad? There has to be an objective moral standard which we can agree on or else anything and everything becomes valid and morally permissible.
Now that I don't agree with.

Jihad is only supposed to be used as a last resort and it is never offensive moves, only defensive. The modern interpretation of this has been warped by the terrorist organisations who have harmed they're own people more than they've harmed Western society.