Are Christian Schools Being Outlawed?

[micatala]

In another thread, the following statement was made.

Ask that to the schools that will be denied accreditation for believing homosexuality is not natural or acceptable. That is to say, the outlawing of Christian education.

The only support that I found offered there was the following:

Quote:
Americans must be free to contribute only to the religious groups of their choosing. Voucher programs violate this principle by forcing all taxpayers to underwrite religious education. Often, religious schools promote sectarian dogma and take controversial stands on issues such as gay rights, the role of women in society and reproductive freedom. Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the spread of religious/moral opinions they may strongly disagree with. All religious projects including schooling should be funded with voluntary contributions from church members.

Here is proof from AU that once gay rights becomes powerfully political (even more) that "Christian Schools" are doomed.

In an effort to debate this particular question without getting bogged down in the wider issues raised in the other thread, I am opening this thread.

So:

Are there even isolated instances of Christian schools being closed down only because of their position on homosexuality?

Even if we cannot find any such cases, would such closures be justified? Why or why not?

Even if we cannot find such cases, is there any real evidence that such closures are imminent?

Wild speculation does not count. What is required is actual evidence that governmental bodies have discussed or are seriously considering such action, again, only because of the schools position on homosexuality.

This is NOT a thread to debate the morality or immorality of homosexuality.

In addition, this is not a thread to debate the existence or non-existence of the so-called gay agenda. We are only interested in official actions by governmental bodies that have the effect of shutting down a school or schools with a Christian affiliation.

Opinions by private citizens (except forum members), political organizations, advocacy groups, etc., are irrelevant.


Vouchers, tax exemptions, and other similar policies are not relevant. Christian schools can and do exist without the presence of vouchers or other special treatment, and so, by themselves, do not result in the shutting down of schools.[/i]

[McCulloch]

Ask that to the schools that will be denied accreditation for believing homosexuality is not natural or acceptable. That is to say, the outlawing of Christian education.

• Are there even isolated instances of Christian schools being closed down only because of their position on homosexuality?
  I don't think that 1John has made the claim that any schools have been denied accreditation for believing homosexuality is not acceptable. He is making the claim that there are some who are asking that schools be denied accreditation for that reason. I believe that there probably are extremists who would ask for such a thing. I also do not think that there is a legislative body in North America or Europe that would seriously think of doing such a thing. Waiting for evidence.
• Even if we cannot find any such cases, would such closures be justified? Why or why not?
  If the schools in question are publicly funded then yes they should adhere to national laws and policies regarding discrimination. If they were not publicly funded then it becomes more difficult. There are two competing rights: the right to practice and teach religion; the rights of identified groups not to be targeted for discrimination.
  Clearly, it would be justified to remove accreditation for a private Wahhabi Islamic school if it taught terrorism and hatred. On the other hand it would be difficult to shut down a Roman Catholic school simply because they teach that women (or men married to women) are not allowed to hold certain offices. Where to draw the line. Two scenarios, each would be discriminatory if taught outside of a religious context. One would merit legal action and the other not. The case in question, discrimination against homosexuals, is somewhere in the vast territory between these two extremes.
• Even if we cannot find such cases, is there any real evidence that such closures are imminent?
  Waiting...

[Shamgar]

Funny don't remember Christ saying. . . . run down to Caesar and get accredited. . . .so if the schools are getting closed. . . .yahoooo. . . . .that will cut down on heresy.. . . .

[Hal] Lindsey was not the only writer to suggest that the Messiah would return in 1988. (69) When Jesus did not return that years, however, Lindsey revised his timescale by suggesting that a biblical generation could be anything from forty to 100 years and that perhaps a Daniel's prophetic clock had started clicking not in 1948 but in 1967 when Israel captured Jerusalem. (70) Undaunted in 1998 Grant Jeffrey calculated that Daniel's last 'week' would begin in 1993, the tribualtion would occur in 1997 and the cleansing of the temple and millineum would begin in the autumn of 2000.(71) Like Lindsey, his subsequent books have been less specific. (72)

Stephen Sizer, Christian Zionism: Road-map to Armageddon? (Leicester: 2004) p. 126.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... 4#continue
Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy - Book Review
Sociology of Religion, Fall, 2003 by Edward Berryman

by JON R. STONE (ed.). New York and London: Routledge, 2000, 284pp. $95.00 (Cloth), $25.95 (Paper)

When Prophecy Fails, by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken and Stanley Schacter, is a true "contemporary classic." It would not be an exaggeration to say that anyone working today in the social scientific study of religion has at least heard about the book. More significantly, it has constantly stimulated scholarly work in the four decades since its publication. This ongoing dialogue with Festinger's work was ripe for an assessment and it is this timely opportunity that Jon R. Stone provides in Expecting Armageddon. Stone has gathered 14 "essential" articles that, through the years, have subjected the Festinger thesis to close scrutiny either in case studies or in more theoretical efforts. The papers are presented in chronological order and are preceded by the first chapter of the Festinger book.

How well has the Festinger thesis stood the test of time? In his introduction, Stone writes: "the central thesis of the Festinger book seems lately to have held true: people tend to respond to failed prophecy in ways that reaffirm their faith" (p.4). And this is the problem with Extracting Armageddon. At the core of When Prophecy Fails lies an erroneous interpretation of the case that it examines. The apocalyptic events foretold by a certain Mrs. Keech, and for which her followers and she had prepared, manifestly did not unfold. This unexpected outcome was accounted for by another message of extraterrestrial origin that Mrs. Keech claimed to have received. The group, reports Festinger, had succeeded in saving the world from apocalypse. Festinger, who wanted to explore the reaction of believers after a disconfirmed prophecy, had the wrong material on hand. Mrs. Keech's prophecy did not fail--it was canceled! Forty years of scholarship have not sufficed to expose this fundamental analytical mistake_ Worse, Expecting Armageddon shows that the incapacity to recognize events for what they claim to be has become a deeply ingrained problem in this field of inquiry.

The studies grouped in Expecting Armageddon basically ask two questions: Why can't members of millennarian groups simply see the obvious and acknowledge that the prophecies in which they believe have been proven falser Why, after disconfirmation, do they react in ways that negate the failure? Based on the empirical evidence provided in the different studies, these questions are inquiries into a non-existing phenomenon. Millennialists do see the obvious. The studies do not report a single instance in which millennialists acted as if the prophecy had indeed been fulfilled in the way it was originally defined or apparently understood. Once the putative moment of occurrence has passed, believers engage in discursive activities revolving mainly around two issues: "What has happened?" and "What is the prophecy about exactly." (Other topics may include "Did we really believe in the prophecy?"). Occasionally, these activities seem to result in the conclusion that the prophecy did fail which, in tom, can provoke the collapse of the millennialist group (see, for instance, the Palmer and Finn chapter). In the vast majority of reported cases, the difference between expectations and occurrences is accounted for in ways that at least partially maintain the plausibility of the prophecy or the prophet's credibility. For instance, the date of the apocalyptic event was miscalculated, or the event was postponed. Or again, the expected day really marked the beginning of the apocalyptic period, or the prophecy was in fact about supernatural events, or the prophecy was not a prophecy after all but a test of the group's faith.

The studies included in Expecting Armageddon fail to recognize that the millennialists cited are not blinded by their adherence to a prophecy. It is quite ironic that a book about "perceptual incompetence" is burdened with the same problem it sees in its object of investigation. According to the experts writing here, the millennialists' discursive activities are the mere expression of their incapacity to grasp reality properly; these true topic is not Why can't scientists see the obvious? but rather Why can't they see the obvious like us, social scientists? Of course, the social scientists are not the bearers of one viewpoint among others, but have the right grasp of reality. Therefore, social scientists can evaluate all perceptual claims for their adequacy. The millennialists are the primitives and the social scientists, the guardian of rationality (van Fossen (p.175-190) addresses this critique to a large portion of the literature about sects but cannot relinquish his position as the ultimate judge about what counts as a prophetic failure or not). Expecting Armageddon depicts an intellectual landscape plaid by a rationalist bias. For a teacher, it could nonetheless be a useful book in a course on the epistemology and methodology of the social scientific study of religion. It provides vivid illustrations of some of the pitfalls one has to circumvent when analyzing religious beliefs.

Edward Berryman
College Sainte-Foy

COPYRIGHT 2003 Association for the Sociology of Religion
COPYRIGHT 2003 Gale Group

[1John2_26]

It's just a matter of time. The club members (secularists, humanists, liberals, skeptics, agnostics, freethinkers, progressives, socialists, yada-yada . . .) allied against Christians will see to the demise of freedoms even within their own schools, EVEN, if outstanding education is gained from these schools.

European Union To Criminalize ‘Homophobia’
This resolution could impact American law through the Supreme Court.

In January 2005, the European Union (EU) approved a resolution banning “homophobia” and urges the legalization of homosexual marriages throughout Europe.

The “Homophobia in Europe” resolution defines homophobia as “an irrational fear and aversion to homosexuality and of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people based on prejudice, similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, sexism.”

The resolution urges action against European nations that do not implement programs that favor homosexuals.

Franco Frattini, the justice minister of the EU has stated: “Homophobia is a violation of human rights and we are watching member states on this issue and reporting on cases in which our efforts have been unsuccessful.” The report warns that “...the Commission and the European Parliament seek to make any refusal to grant homosexual couples the same rights as a married couple a crime of ’homophobia.’”

Catholics in Europe are particularly outraged by this European Union resolution and fear what it will do to the traditional family. The secretary of the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences, Msgr. Aldo Giordano reported on Vatican radio on January 19, that: “Sometimes it seems there is the domination (within the European Parliament) of a certain ideology of pluralism which sees everything that exists as something good. There really is lacking a reflection on what is truly human, what is human richness, what is good and evil, what is truth.”

Giordano also observed: “It should be clear that certain subjects, especially those relating to the family, are not within the direct competence of the European Union but are the recognized competence of nations.”

The European Union statement against “homophobia” came after the governments of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Poland ruled against homosexual “marriage.” In fact, in October 2005, the Polish Prime Minister, Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, stated: “If anybody tries to contaminate others with his homosexuality, the state should intervene against such an infringement of liberty.”

The European Union reacted to these actions against homosexual marriage by posting the following notice on its web site: “Following a series of worrying events which has recently taken place in a number of EU member states, …. from banning gay pride or equality marches to leading political and religious leaders’ inflammatory/hate/threatening language, MEPs [Members of European Parliament] strongly condemn discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”

‘Homophobia’ In the U.S.
The homosexual movement is determined to criminalize opposition to homosexual conduct as “homophobia” or to create a new mental illness of “homophobia” that will be adopted by the American Psychiatric Association for its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM).

The goal of labeling opposition to homosexuality as a mental illness has a long history. As long ago as 1991, homosexual activists held a National Gay and Lesbian Health Conference in New Orleans. One of the topics was “Homophobia: A Public Health Hazard.” Dr. Hilda Hildago, a Rutgers professor, conducted the seminar. She claimed that “heterosexism and homophobia” are “socially transmitted mental health diseases that affect all members of the society.”

More recently, a California psychologist, Edward Dunbar has suggested that “extreme bias” against homosexuals should be considered a mental illness. Dunbar’s proposal was featured in the Washington Post, (December 10, 2005).

Dunbar wants “extreme bias against homosexuals” (homophobia) added to the APA’s DSM. His suggestion is supported by numerous others in the field of psychology including Shama Chaiken, who served as chief psychologist for the California Department of Corrections. She said: “We treat racism and homophobia as delusional disorders. Treatment with anti-psychotics does work to reduce these prejudices.” Dunbar’s proposal is being circulated among psychologists and psychiatrists for consideration.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2598

And:

Christianity Under Attack

For "gay" and lesbian activists intent on molding American culture in their own image, the Church is seen as the most stalwart opponent resisting the triumph of homosexual philosophy. As Paul Varnell, a homosexual columnist and writer, says, "It can scarcely be doubted that the primary, and perhaps only sources of our culture's anti-gay hostility are the Christian denominations." To counter this threat, some activists have undertaken a long-term strategy of capturing the Church from within, in order to use its long-standing moral authority as an instrument of change.5

For example, Rev. Troy Perry (founder of the homosexually-oriented Metropolitan Community Church) said, "To condemn homosexuals, many denominations have intentionally misread and misinterpreted their Bibles to please their own personal preferences. (Emphasis added)5

"Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying (them) as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step…with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of 'Old Time Religion' one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion . . . Such an 'unholy' alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion…(T)hat alliance can work for gays." - Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's23

"Hilaire Belloc predicted in 1938 . . . the final attack on Catholicism is the world of secular humanism, attacking and intimidating the church - and the idea is that the Christian faiths of all denominations are to be pushed aside, marginalized, taken out of the political arena, demoralized, so that Christianity will become small mutant sects which will have no input into the history of the world."4
The agenda is attempting to demolish Christianity for once and for all, and it's happening now! Belloc said "[O]ne of the hallmarks of this final attack on Christianity will be reason and logic will no longer be applied and that it will be characterized by emotion, political correctness [he didn't use that word] and that these will be the first signs that the Christian faith is now under the final, most vicious and most ruthless attack."4

How has the Christian faith been attacked and demoralized? It has come about that the tool, the worm gnawing away at Christianity, has turned out to be the homosexual movement. It would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, but it is a reality now."4


Homosexuals are the front, the advance guard of humanism, secularism, materialism.4
We are fighting an evil and we must pronounce it as such. We must not be intimidated... it attacks the very essence of Christianity and accepting homosexuality will be, as Hilaire Beloc said, to lose our reason, our rational thought and to fall into emotion and intimidation.4

Homosexual activists are very closely involved in the abortion battle as well because they know it's deteriorating and breaking down the structure of society. 4


The homosexual activist movement is driving an agenda that will severely limit the ability to live and practice the Gospel, whether it is in the boardroom, the classroom, halls of government, private organizations, and even in places of worship.11

The biggest obstacle in the paths of the homosexual activists are people of faith who are serious about their faith; particularly evangelicals, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Jews.11

At a recent homosexual youth conference, activists readily admitted, "we know America was founded as a Christian nation, we are trying to get America away from that."11

A homosexual "pastor" stated: "There has been a radical shift in the past 10 years. Attitudes towards gays and lesbians have changed in the workplace, schools, and other civic entities. For the church to continue to stall seems archaic and irrelevant."11


"In the late 90's, the California Legislature voted to allow citizens to use public taxpayer money to sue Christian organizations (like radio stations or schools) that refer to homosexuality as a sin. (You know, like in the Bible?) This bill, AB257, actually passed in both Houses, only to be vetoed by outgoing Governor Pete Wilson. Another bill, AB310, would have put churches under state regulation, so they would be forced to hire homosexuals."10

"In any other context, this would be seen for what it is -- an Orwellian transformation of our culture with religious liberty sacrificed for the sake of a well organized group of moral revolutionaries. But, in our current day of moral revisionism, all this is packaged as the new moral enlightenment."30

If two people or more consent to something, that legitimizes it. Forget God, forget churches, forget community, and forget moral standards of any kind. "It's what I decide to do." That's what we are up against in America today.31

Christians who doubt that the homosexual agenda is a genuine threat to religious liberty need only consider employees in major corporations who are judged to be uncooperative and thus terminated or turned down for promotion, because they will not serve on a committee planning a gay awareness day or post a rainbow flag on their cubicle. Just ask parents ready to take foster children into their homes in California, who are denied the opportunity to care for children in need because they will not bend the knee to the homosexual activists. Or, consider those in other nations already facing criminal sanctions and heavy fines simply for preaching or teaching that homosexuality is sinful.30

For years, gay activists said all they wanted was "tolerance" but now that pretense is over. Radical homosexual activists will use their financial and political clout to silence people of faith and the gospel. If God's people and God's church do not take a clear, uncompromised stand, the result will be that with each passing generation the freedom to live and practice Christian faith and the traditional family will become more restricted and become a remnant of history.26

Nowhere is the fight for religious freedom more evident than in the assault of radical homosexual activists upon the church. If intimidation does not work, homosexual activists are willing to unleash the power of federal, state, and local governments to cow the church and believers into silence. And once the church is silenced on the sexual behavior issue, it will not take long before it is silenced on other issues.38

If speaking out against homosexual behavior would be considered “hate,” then what about other sexual sins, such as adultery? Without moral authority, the church in the United States will become like so many are now in Europe, museum pieces from an era long, long ago. The result will be tragic for the millions of individuals who will be unable to hear and respond to the Gospel because churches may no longer be allowed to proclaim it.38

And:

Guy Adams
January 23, 2005


Dear America,

If you're a Christian or other decent patriotic American, this should interest you, as your free speech and religious freedoms are being legislated away, and as our time-tested moral rectitudes become moral incertitudes. Illinois recently passed a 'gay rights' bill SB-3186, and this bill sets another precedent that in time will affect all Americans, especially faith-based groups. I've heard many people say "It can't happen here." As I've stated many times, and as Dr. Alan Keyes has passionately and eloquently stated many more times than that, it IS happening here and it will continue to happen here unless we speak out now and speak out repeatedly. "Here" will one day become everywhere if this is not stopped. If you care for your free speech and religious freedoms — the very reason this country's founders left England centuries ago, then get involved and stay involved.

Get involved before it becomes illegal to get involved (It's already unfashionable). "That can't happen here," you say again? Not in America? We're one of the few nations on the face of the earth to allow political protest and public dissent. Most nations did not — and do not — tolerate it, and some tolerated it only up to the point where it ceased to serve the governments political needs. All through history governments discouraged and punished dissent — calling it sedition or insurrection. It's already against the law to speak against homosexuality in Pennsylvania (also Canada and some countries in Europe), where a pastor was locked up and charged with numerous counts of hate speech for publicly stating that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. Well then, why not lock up the gays who say that Christianity is wrong? It's not hate-speech in that case? Why not? Double standards abound, and they want it that way.

The American experiment in democracy is a relatively new thing to the world, and very brief in its existence on the world stage. If the Liberal Left's agenda will not be accepted by the heartland — and it won't — then their goal is to force it upon you using the full force of law, as has already happened in some places as I've mentioned. The great experiment will begin to end.

We must all act before our freedom to speak out has been completely taken away from us. If the freedom to speak out in public is taken away, what unobjectionable avenues for political dissent will be left? Not many. The Liberal Left knows this. What's next, prohibitions against speaking out in private — children turning in their parents? It's happened before. One of the great mistakes of civilization is to see a clear and present danger and yet say "It can't happen here." It has, it is, and it will, unless we begin to act now.

The many are being ruled by the few; in effect, a tyranny. Approximately eighty-two percent of Americans describe themselves as Christian, yet this overwhelming majority is being ruled by an extremely small and militant liberal minority. What makes this even worse is that a large percentage of non-Christians are also opposed to gay marriage and special gay rights. It's a tyranny, plain and simple. To reverse this tragic and unconstitutional course of affairs, take a few minutes out of every week or month and write your representatives — Republican or Democrat. The Liberal Left does this and more, and the squeaky wheel got the grease.

The Bible frequently seems to be at the core of this debate, and naturally so. Liberals hate the Bible because its moral certainties say that key elements of their agenda — namely abortion and gay 'rights' — are wrong. The Bible also speaks out against other bastions of the Liberals like prolonged government welfare, saying "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat," but that's another discussion for another time (I'll be back). The Liberal Left won't stand for a traditional set of rights and wrongs because they want to outlaw the conscience of the nation. They want to do a bypass on the heart of America. All behavior is acceptable so long as it doesn't "hurt" people. What is hurt? To the Liberal Left, "hurt" apparently means gross physical harm, nothing more.

So let's define "hurt." Is a lifetime of emotional hurt, "hurt?" Is a mother's lifetime of regret after aborting her baby, "hurt?" After gay men in the thousands continue to die of AIDS, will that be "hurt?" After your right to free expression is legislated away, will you call that "hurt?" The great founders of this nation thought that there was enough "hurt" inflicted on them by the King regarding free speech and religious liberties, to compel them to flee Old England and come to America despite rampant disease here, isolation, no existing infrastructure and a lifetime of toil the likes of which many of us will never experience. Would it be "hurt" enough once again to not be able to quote the Words of the Creator as you see fit in public? I, for one, think so; do you? If so, speak out now.

This is not about "civil rights," as the Left would have us believe. It's really not even about politics. It's about legislating wrong behavior and forcing it down the mouths of everyday decent Americans. The right to pursue happiness is a right guaranteed to all, even for gays, but not if it infringes on the rights to happiness and free speech of others, as most gay rights bills directly or indirectly do. They seek to impose a humanistic morality — in effect, a secular 'religion' — on its citizens. This is what the Liberal gay agenda is about. Some of the embryonic gay rights bills passed recently don't seem that intimidating or all-encompassing, but they are merely starting points. Remember that a house is built one brick at a time. Gay rights bills in other states will affect you too, since our system of legal jurisprudence is largely based on the notion of precedence. If we allow our elected officials and unelected judges to legislate their concept of morality in stark opposition to the Constitution and the Founder's intents, or against the wishes of the people's majority, we're on slippery ground.

Finally, the gay rights agenda is spearheaded mainly by Liberals. Not Democrats or Republicans, per se, but far-left dyed in the wool Liberals. It just so happens that most Liberals are Democrats in this day and age. All Liberals are not bad, and no doubt some are sincere and patriotic, but it is a fact that the recent gay rights bill in Illinois — and gay rights bills in other states like Massachusetts — were shepherded into law mainly by ELECTED officials. Republicans should be appalled that there was a lack of clear and forceful opposition by their own party to this bill. Moderate Democrats should be dismayed that their party initiated the bill.

So write your representatives and tell them that you will NOT vote for them if they continue to support and pass, or fail to vigorously oppose, such abysmal legislation. Let them know that you'll actively work against their reelection if they persist on codifying unnatural behaviors and relationships against the wishes of most of the American people. Let them know in no uncertain terms, that their political careers will come to an end if they continue to restrict the free speech of decent Americans. For "We the People" to be effective, "We the People" must speak out and be heard.

[1John2_26]

And the war on Christians is waged openly without a care to their rights:

San Francisco Declares War On Christianity
March 30, 2006 – The city of San Francisco leadership and radical leftwing organizations have declared open war against Christianity in recent weeks.

The Board of Supervisors voted on March 22 to approve a non-binding resolution that condemns the Catholic Church for its opposition to homosexual adoption. The resolution said that the church’s anti-homosexual adoption policy was “hateful and discriminatory rhetoric (that) is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors.”

The resolution also noted: “It is an insult to all San Franciscans when a foreign country, like the Vatican, meddles with and attempts to negatively influence this great city’s existing and established customs and traditions, such as the right of same-sex couples to adopt and care for children in need.”

Over the weekend of March 25-26, radical leftwing groups in San Francisco and California State Assemblyman Mark Leno, a homosexual activist, attacked a Teen Mania youth rally in San Francisco sponsored by Ron Luce. Luce’s ministry is sponsoring Teen Mania rallies all over the U.S. to encourage teens to be sexually pure and to fight back against the culture of corruption that is victimizing so many teenagers.

Radical groups such as the World Can’t Wait, Not In Our Name, Code Pink, and the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, held a noisy counter rally in front of city hall. They used bull horns to shout at the Teen Mania teenagers: “Religion Is One Thing, Theocracy Is Another,” “The Christian Right Is Wrong!”

Leftists also called Teen Mania kids “fascists” and yelled “Racist, Sexist, Anti-gay, Christian fascists go away.”

The World Can’t Wait group is a front organization for the Revolutionary Communist Party, a hate group that describes itself as Maoist and calls for the violent overthrow of our government. Not in Our Name is also a front group for this communist party organization.

[1John2_26]

And when Christian High School's can be sued for rejecting lesbianism the clock is ticking for the complete demise of Christian schools. The Gay Agenda in reality:

Teens Accused of Being Lesbians Sue School
Calif. Teens, Suspected of Being Lesbians, Sue Christian School Over Expulsion
The Associated Press
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - Two 16-year-olds who were expelled from a Lutheran high school because they were suspected of being lesbians have sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.

The lawsuit, filed last week in Riverside County Superior Court, seeks the girls' re-enrollment at the small California Lutheran High School, unspecified damages and an injunction barring the school from excluding gays and lesbians.


Kirk D. Hanson, an attorney for the girls, said the expulsion traumatized and humiliated them.


"Their entire support network was pulled out from under them because of suspicions about their sexual orientation," said Hanson, who declined to say whether his clients are lesbians.


The school is on Christmas break until next week, and messages left for school officials Thursday were not immediately returned.


The lawsuit alleges that the school's principal, Gregory Bork, called the girls into his office, grilled them on their sexual orientation and "coerced" one girl into saying she loved the other.


The next day, the lawsuit says, Bork told the girls' parents they could not stay at the school with "those feelings." In a Sept. 12 letter to the parents, Bork acknowledged that officials had seen no physical contact between the girls but said their friendship was "uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and more characteristic of a lesbian one."


"Such a relationship violates our Christian Code of Conduct," Bork wrote in his letter, which was included as an exhibit in the lawsuit. He called the girls' behavior "scandalous" and "immoral."


Hanson said the 142-student school in Wildomar, Calif., must comply with state civil rights laws because it functions as a business by collecting tuition.


"There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here," Hanson said. "The school is claiming the girls were expelled because their conduct wasn't within the Christian code. But at the same time, (the school) has students who aren't Christians and are even Jewish."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Shamgar]

And when Christian High School's can be sued for rejecting lesbianism the clock is ticking for the complete demise of Christian schools. The Gay Agenda in reality:

Teens Accused of Being Lesbians Sue School
Calif. Teens, Suspected of Being Lesbians, Sue Christian School Over Expulsion
The Associated Press

"There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here," Hanson said. "The school is claiming the girls were expelled because their conduct wasn't within the Christian code. But at the same time, (the school) has students who aren't Christians and are even Jewish."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Yup the newspaper has it correct. . . . the false church has drank from the poison cup of humanism (aka vomit) and now they are complaining about who they have to share their "Christian" school with. . . sorry you claim to practice tolerance yet you refuse to show tolerance. . . to not be a hypocrite you would have to reject,"civil rights,""Equal rights," and "tolerance" across the board. . . the vomit is a package deal. . . ..failure to do so accurately identifies you as a: hypocrite.

Hypocrite n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that he does not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney, pretender]

hyp·o·crite n. A person given to hypocrisy.

hypocrite
one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not; a dissembler in
religion. Our Lord severely rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their
hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16). "The hypocrite's hope shall perish" (Job 8:13).
The Hebrew word here rendered "hypocrite" rather means the "godless" or
"profane," as it is rendered in Jer. 23:11, i.e., polluted with crimes.

it is all clearly explained in my original post. . . . .
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=3233
Are You Still A Racist, Xenophobic, and Intolerant Hater?

[McCulloch]

Funny don't remember Christ saying. . . . run down to Caesar and get accredited. . . .so if the schools are getting closed. . . .yahoooo. . . . .that will cut down on heresy.. . . .

It is not relevent to the debate question whether the schools in question are heretical or not. It is possible but not likely that a school be set up that is not heretical by your standards. The question for debate would be, for you, should such a school be outlawed if it discriminated against homosexuals.

The rest of your post is completely off-topic. The moderators have asked you before to remain on topic. Please do.

[McCulloch]

1John, much of your post is not relevent to the question for debate. Please address the questions:

• Are there even isolated instances of Christian schools being closed down only because of their position on homosexuality?
• Even if we cannot find any such cases, would such closures be justified? Why or why not?
• Even if we cannot find such cases, is there any real evidence that such closures are imminent?

In "European Union To Criminalize ‘Homophobia’", there is no reference to schools or school closings. In "Christianity under Attack", you refer to legislation not passed. As far as I can see the Guy Adams piece is just a rant.

The California Lutheran High School case is relevent.

It's just a matter of time. The club members (secularists, humanists, liberals, skeptics, agnostics, freethinkers, progressives, socialists, yada-yada . . .) allied against Christians will see to the demise of freedoms even within their own schools, EVEN, if outstanding education is gained from these schools.

European Union To Criminalize ‘Homophobia’
[...]
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2598

And:

Christianity Under Attack
[...]In the late 90's, the California Legislature voted to allow citizens to use public taxpayer money to sue Christian organizations (like radio stations or schools) that refer to homosexuality as a sin. (You know, like in the Bible?) This bill, AB257, actually passed in both Houses, only to be vetoed by outgoing Governor Pete Wilson. Another bill, AB310, would have put churches under state regulation, so they would be forced to hire homosexuals.

And:

Guy Adams
January 23, 2005
[...]

San Francisco Declares War On Christianity
March 30, 2006 – The city of San Francisco leadership and radical leftwing organizations have declared open war against Christianity in recent weeks.
[...]

And when Christian High School's can be sued for rejecting lesbianism the clock is ticking for the complete demise of Christian schools. The Gay Agenda in reality:

Teens Accused of Being Lesbians Sue School
Calif. Teens, Suspected of Being Lesbians, Sue Christian School Over Expulsion
The Associated Press
RIVERSIDE, Calif. - Two 16-year-olds who were expelled from a Lutheran high school because they were suspected of being lesbians have sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.
The lawsuit, filed last week in Riverside County Superior Court, seeks the girls' re-enrollment at the small California Lutheran High School, unspecified damages and an injunction barring the school from excluding gays and lesbians.
Kirk D. Hanson, an attorney for the girls, said the expulsion traumatized and humiliated them.
"Their entire support network was pulled out from under them because of suspicions about their sexual orientation," said Hanson, who declined to say whether his clients are lesbians.
The school is on Christmas break until next week, and messages left for school officials Thursday were not immediately returned.
The lawsuit alleges that the school's principal, Gregory Bork, called the girls into his office, grilled them on their sexual orientation and "coerced" one girl into saying she loved the other.
The next day, the lawsuit says, Bork told the girls' parents they could not stay at the school with "those feelings." In a Sept. 12 letter to the parents, Bork acknowledged that officials had seen no physical contact between the girls but said their friendship was "uncharacteristic of normal girl relationships and more characteristic of a lesbian one."
"Such a relationship violates our Christian Code of Conduct," Bork wrote in his letter, which was included as an exhibit in the lawsuit. He called the girls' behavior "scandalous" and "immoral."
Hanson said the 142-student school in Wildomar, Calif., must comply with state civil rights laws because it functions as a business by collecting tuition.
"There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here," Hanson said. "The school is claiming the girls were expelled because their conduct wasn't within the Christian code. But at the same time, (the school) has students who aren't Christians and are even Jewish."
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

[McCulloch]

Moderator Intervention

It is irrelevent to the question whether the school is behaving or if another debater is being hypocritical. Please address the issues for debate.

The overriding principle on this forum is respect. Respect for others is of high importance here. You are encouraged to point out where you believe others hold beliefs which are false. But using terms like "poison cup" and "vomit" show your obvious lack of respect.

Yup the newspaper has it correct. . . . the false church has drank from the poison cup of humanism (aka vomit) and now they are complaining about who they have to share their "Christian" school with. . . sorry you claim to practice tolerance yet you refuse to show tolerance. . . to not be a hypocrite you would have to reject,"civil rights,""Equal rights," and "tolerance" across the board. . . the vomit is a package deal. . . ..failure to do so accurately identifies you as a: hypocrite.