You must not understand that words have definitions. You are a segregationist because you wish to put people in to different non-interacting groups. Black vs. white is just the most well known example. We have no information about the opportunities made available to the Pioneers for Christ. However even in principle I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus. That is segregation and I don't support it. Put the ideas in one room, present them and trust the intelligence of the people viewing the forum to do what is right. You limit the input to limit the output. That sounds authoritarian over people instead of trusting of people.
Nick
The definition of "segregationist" is quite specific: "One that advocates or practices a policy of racial segregation." That's the only definition at Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster OnLine, and Google (Princeton WordNet). You had to have known the word carried significant negative connotations as well, so don't play stupid.
"I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus."
I'm sorry, but your English language skills are lacking as usual. I'm not sure what an 'exact forum' is, nevermind how they would offer the 'same perspective' and run on 'different parts' of the school's 'campus.' Perhaps you can clarify that.
During Monday's court hearing, Lloyd said officials wanted to present a positive message to offset the views of the school's Pioneers for Christ club, of which Hansen was a member. Lloyd said officials also wanted to encourage tolerance and discourage violence and harassment inflicted on gay students at the high school. He also said the Pioneers for Christ were offered an opportunity to hold their own panel discussion but declined.
It sounds like not letting the officials off the hook with an out to justify their harassment of one student group.
Where was their forum to be held? Scheduled during lunch in the unwashed football equipment locker? Even you should be able to understand seperate but equal doesn't really have to end up seperate and equal.
Nick
Firstly, they offered the Christians the opportunity to speak. Where on earth do you get the idea that this is "harrassment?" I'm sorry if I miss your point here, but I don't understand your post.
Secondly, how do you know that they didn't offer the Christians an opportunity to speak on stage in the main conference hall? How on earth are we to know they didn't?
Firstly, they offered the Christians the opportunity to speak. Where on earth do you get the idea that this is "harrassment?" I'm sorry if I miss your point here, but I don't understand your post.
Secondly, how do you know that they didn't offer the Christians an opportunity to speak on stage in the main conference hall? How on earth are we to know they didn't?
The definition of "segregationist" is quite specific: "One that advocates or practices a policy of racial segregation." That's the only definition at Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster OnLine, and Google (Princeton WordNet). You had to have known the word carried significant negative connotations as well, so don't play stupid.
"I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus."
I'm sorry, but your English language skills are lacking as usual. I'm not sure what an 'exact forum' is, nevermind how they would offer the 'same perspective' and run on 'different parts' of the school's 'campus.' Perhaps you can clarify that.
Let me suggest then that you look up the word segregating.
Quote:
1. To separate or isolate from others or from a main body or group. See Synonyms at isolate.
2. To impose the separation of (a race or class) from the rest of society.
As I said racial is the best known example, however it is possible to segregate in a number of ways including gender, age, and income.
Exact forum is clear enough. The forum was called religion and homosexuality(gays). To be offered their own forum would mean a seperate forum also called "religion and homosexuality" offered on another part of the campus at the same time. Or on the same part of campus at a different time.
I see your correspondence courses from the "Three Stooges" school of debate are improving your ability to claim authority and call others ignorant.
So you use an appeal to expertise and authority? You are welcome to support your claims at any time of your expertise at any time. Care to list your credentials that prove your expertise over say my "opinions."
During Pioneer High?s ?2002 Diversity Week,? held this past March, the school sponsored various events, including student speeches given at an all school assembly and panel discussions on various issues such as race, religion, and ?Homosexuality and Religion.? Although Betsy was permitted to give a speech during the student assembly, she was required to submit her speech to school officials for their prior approval. School officials removed all references critical of homosexual activity.
Hmmm...no censorship or thought control there...
Quote:
In order to further achieve their purpose with this panel discussion, school officials selected and invited certain religious leaders and clergy members who would promote and endorse their pro-homosexual ?religious? belief. School officials denied Betsy?s request to have panel members present who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexual activity. School officials also pre-screened questions for the panel members, selected the faculty advisor for the Gay Straight Alliance to act as ?moderator,? prohibited ?open? questions to panel members, and expressly prohibited the students from personally interacting with any panel member before, during, or after the panel discussion.
Moreover, to ensure that only a particular religious belief regarding homosexuality was presented during the student panel discussion on religion, which immediately followed the discussion on ?Religion and Homosexuality,? school officials created written guidelines that prohibited, among other things, student panel members from making comments that ?target? another person?s ?sexual orientation.?
Isn't it amazing that the left will claim "Under god" in the pledge is religious coercion. That having clergy speak during commencement ceremonies is coercion. However having an entire panel of religious leaders promoting the homosexual lifestyle is in no way religious coercion. Even when they were selected by the school administration and staff members. Likewise according to this it was a school sponsored forum and the gay/straight student club was allowed to have the teacher who sponsors them act as the moderator. The state is not allowed to endorse one particular religion. Having a religious panel during diversity week in which you exclude someone's religion while promoting others is a Constitutional violation. No matter how little or much you agree with their views it is a violation. How is a religious panel chosen by school administrators and moderated by a teacher not somehow be an endorsement of religious views by the state?
Quote:
This federal civil rights lawsuit challenges these actions, alleging that school officials violated Betsy?s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that school officials violated the Establishment Clause by impermissibly promoting and endorsing the religious belief that homosexual activity is compatible with religion, by conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of the Roman Catholic belief that homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, and by coercing students to accept and support the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful.
The judges ruling, it is clearly violating free speech, freedom of religion and equal protection.
Of course only in the leftist la, la, land would screening questions, editing speeches for content, speech codes about what can be asked or spoken, and of course clear denial of certain people to participate be "free speech" and "diversity."
You folks will deserve the police state you advocate.
That's a fine source that conveys your viewpoint, but what about the school's?
Questioning the source when you don't have an arguement to stand on? You are becoming so predictable Shawn.
You can answer the questions regardless of their source. If the school set up the forum, choose the moderator and the religious speakers who all advocated one view, is that an endorsement or religion? You can add the nice disclaimer that you don't know if this school did those particular actions, but if they did they would be.... right...wrong... an endorsement or religion, etc.
Last time I checked the school mentioned didn't have any prohibitions on who attended. Tell me how the diversity week would "increase diversity." Would a certain percentage of the population suddenly change their sexual orientation? It was not attempting to increase diversity. It was attempting to unify thought around once concept, that all religions find homosexuality acceptable. That doesn't increase diversity and it doesn't present reality.
What are you talking about? I can't tell you if it would be successful, it's not my gig anyway.
Hey, I heard there was going to be a "religious tolerance" seminar, and guess what they did? They told the nice man that was going to explain why God hates Jews and how the Jews secretly control all the money and banks and how the Jews killed Christ our Lord, they told him he couldn't come! He wasn't even allowed to speak! How is that "religious tolerance"? It's not like the nice man "hates" Jews, he just has a different viewpoint! Lots of people think the same thing about Jews, shouldn't their voices be heard?
I guess those self-proclaimed "liberals" are just a bunch of hypocrites, huh? Them and their Jew buddies! I guess they figure they can brain-wash everybody into believing the PC line about Jews and then they can move on with the great liberal/Jew takeover! So much for tolerance! IT'S JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!
Questioning the source when you don't have an arguement to stand on? You are becoming so predictable Shawn.
You can answer the questions regardless of their source. If the school set up the forum, choose the moderator and the religious speakers who all advocated one view, is that an endorsement or religion? You can add the nice disclaimer that you don't know if this school did those particular actions, but if they did they would be.... right...wrong... an endorsement or religion, etc.
Nick
Okay, Nick, here's what I think about the whole thing.
The forum itself was a good idea because its goal was to increase tolerance in the school towards homosexuality. Belligerent attitudes towards gay students is never a good thing when you're dealing with high school students. And it appears that the forum was needed to offset a seemingly vocal student club that advocated against homosexuality. While it appears heavy-handed of the school to include only speakers who agreed with the conclusion that homosexuality is ultimately acceptable to religion, it's really not. That's because the school offered to hold the same type of forum with the opposing viewpoint. In all fairness, the school offered equal opportunities to its student groups concerned with issues of homosexuality. By law it is required to. That's the biggest part of the case, and I believe you're wrong to say that anyone was excluded without a fair chance to participate.
I think you and I would both agree that the problem is that the opposing viewpoint was excluded- undeniably. We would both agree that the Pioneers for Christ turned down the opportunity to hold a similar forum with the opposing viewpoint. That was their chance to participate, and it was the same chance given to the other club. Now there wouldn't be a problem had the Pioneers for Christ not turned down their chance. Given the circumstances of the forum, it is ultimately their fault the opposing viewpoint was not heard.
Now I understand your other arguments here as well: that the forum wouldn't be held during Diversity Week, etc. But I don't think that matters as much as you think. I'd also like to qualify a few of my statements. The problem I see with the whole thing, regardless of whether two forums were held instead of one, is the closed nature of the questioning part. I think it's perfectly fine that two separate forums be held with opposing viewpoints, but I find it unacceptable that students were not able to freely question the speakers. I hope you would agree.
Please no smart ass sarcastic comments because I really tried that time.
Hey, I heard there was going to be a "religious tolerance" seminar, and guess what they did? They told the nice man that was going to explain why God hates Jews and how the Jews secretly control all the money and banks and how the Jews killed Christ our Lord, they told him he couldn't come! He wasn't even allowed to speak! How is that "religious tolerance"? It's not like the nice man "hates" Jews, he just has a different viewpoint! Lots of people think the same thing about Jews, shouldn't their voices be heard?
I guess those self-proclaimed "liberals" are just a bunch of hypocrites, huh? Them and their Jew buddies! I guess they figure they can brain-wash everybody into believing the PC line about Jews and then they can move on with the great liberal/Jew takeover! So much for tolerance! IT'S JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!
WOW!
Most of the Jew hating propaganda is propagated by the political left and their operachiks. Your disgusting post above being a case in point.
Okay, Nick, here's what I think about the whole thing.
The forum itself was a good idea because its goal was to increase tolerance in the school towards homosexuality. Belligerent attitudes towards gay students is never a good thing when you're dealing with high school students. And it appears that the forum was needed to offset a seemingly vocal student club that advocated against homosexuality. While it appears heavy-handed of the school to include only speakers who agreed with the conclusion that homosexuality is ultimately acceptable to religion, it's really not. That's because the school offered to hold the same type of forum with the opposing viewpoint. In all fairness, the school offered equal opportunities to its student groups concerned with issues of homosexuality. By law it is required to. That's the biggest part of the case, and I believe you're wrong to say that anyone was excluded without a fair chance to participate.
I think you and I would both agree that the problem is that the opposing viewpoint was excluded- undeniably. We would both agree that the Pioneers for Christ turned down the opportunity to hold a similar forum with the opposing viewpoint. That was their chance to participate, and it was the same chance given to the other club. Now there wouldn't be a problem had the Pioneers for Christ not turned down their chance. Given the circumstances of the forum, it is ultimately their fault the opposing viewpoint was not heard.
Now I understand your other arguments here as well: that the forum wouldn't be held during Diversity Week, etc. But I don't think that matters as much as you think. I'd also like to qualify a few of my statements. The problem I see with the whole thing, regardless of whether two forums were held instead of one, is the closed nature of the questioning part. I think it's perfectly fine that two separate forums be held with opposing viewpoints, but I find it unacceptable that students were not able to freely question the speakers. I hope you would agree.
Please no smart ass sarcastic comments because I really tried that time.
No sarcastic comments, here. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A couple hairs to split so that I can fully understand your thinking.
Do you think the vocal student group is that way on their own? Do you think they became more vocal because there was a gay/straight student group? Do you think they are more vocal because administration has taken a clear side and is advocating for one group over another?
From my own perspective, and I will qualify this with the fact that there was one more article at the Thomas More Center dealing with the school, The Pioneer Club, etc. However it wasn't related to this specific incident and so I didn't post it considering that some people would already question the source. (Not being sarcastic, it was true) It seems the administration also passed a non-discrimination code that it sounds like also contained speech codes. The "activists" on the campus tried to get the Pioneer club tossed for not agreeing to the codes. So it seems there might be antagonism from more than the Pioneer club itself. Likewise since the other parties seem to have the support of administration, and certain actions seem aimed specifically at the Pioneer club, it might harden their positions and actions a bit. (just my view, no way to support it)
I'm just going to have to disagree with you though on the seperate but equal thing regarding the forums. So be it though.
I do agree that the closed questioning of any party, on any meetings that would be held is not acceptable.
Now again, thanks for the thoughtful post. I would ask you to comment, with qualifiers if need be, about the state endorsement of religion. One article didn't really address who choose the participating religious leaders. The Thomas More piece mentions they were chosen by administration. The issue is less clear with student selection of religion, but pretty clear in my opinion about school leaders or administrators selecting religious folks. Did the fact that the forum contained (possibly) religious leaders only selected by administration and staff constitute a state endorsement of a religion?
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
You must not understand that words have definitions. You are a segregationist because you wish to put people in to different non-interacting groups. Black vs. white is just the most well known example. We have no information about the opportunities made available to the Pioneers for Christ. However even in principle I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus. That is segregation and I don't support it. Put the ideas in one room, present them and trust the intelligence of the people viewing the forum to do what is right. You limit the input to limit the output. That sounds authoritarian over people instead of trusting of people.
Nick
The definition of "segregationist" is quite specific: "One that advocates or practices a policy of racial segregation." That's the only definition at Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster OnLine, and Google (Princeton WordNet). You had to have known the word carried significant negative connotations as well, so don't play stupid.
"I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus."
I'm sorry, but your English language skills are lacking as usual. I'm not sure what an 'exact forum' is, nevermind how they would offer the 'same perspective' and run on 'different parts' of the school's 'campus.' Perhaps you can clarify that.
Originally posted by trumptman
During Monday's court hearing, Lloyd said officials wanted to present a positive message to offset the views of the school's Pioneers for Christ club, of which Hansen was a member. Lloyd said officials also wanted to encourage tolerance and discourage violence and harassment inflicted on gay students at the high school. He also said the Pioneers for Christ were offered an opportunity to hold their own panel discussion but declined.
It sounds like not letting the officials off the hook with an out to justify their harassment of one student group.
Where was their forum to be held? Scheduled during lunch in the unwashed football equipment locker? Even you should be able to understand seperate but equal doesn't really have to end up seperate and equal.
Nick
Firstly, they offered the Christians the opportunity to speak. Where on earth do you get the idea that this is "harrassment?" I'm sorry if I miss your point here, but I don't understand your post.
Secondly, how do you know that they didn't offer the Christians an opportunity to speak on stage in the main conference hall? How on earth are we to know they didn't?
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Firstly, they offered the Christians the opportunity to speak. Where on earth do you get the idea that this is "harrassment?" I'm sorry if I miss your point here, but I don't understand your post.
Secondly, how do you know that they didn't offer the Christians an opportunity to speak on stage in the main conference hall? How on earth are we to know they didn't?
It's harassment, propaganda, segregation, authoritarianism, it's.... oh yeah... trumptman doesn't know what he's talking about.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
The definition of "segregationist" is quite specific: "One that advocates or practices a policy of racial segregation." That's the only definition at Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster OnLine, and Google (Princeton WordNet). You had to have known the word carried significant negative connotations as well, so don't play stupid.
"I would be against two exact forums covering the same perspective on different parts of the campus."
I'm sorry, but your English language skills are lacking as usual. I'm not sure what an 'exact forum' is, nevermind how they would offer the 'same perspective' and run on 'different parts' of the school's 'campus.' Perhaps you can clarify that.
Let me suggest then that you look up the word segregating.
1. To separate or isolate from others or from a main body or group. See Synonyms at isolate.
2. To impose the separation of (a race or class) from the rest of society.
As I said racial is the best known example, however it is possible to segregate in a number of ways including gender, age, and income.
Exact forum is clear enough. The forum was called religion and homosexuality(gays). To be offered their own forum would mean a seperate forum also called "religion and homosexuality" offered on another part of the campus at the same time. Or on the same part of campus at a different time.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's harassment, propaganda, segregation, authoritarianism, it's.... oh yeah... trumptman doesn't know what he's talking about.
I see your correspondence courses from the "Three Stooges" school of debate are improving your ability to claim authority and call others ignorant.
So you use an appeal to expertise and authority? You are welcome to support your claims at any time of your expertise at any time. Care to list your credentials that prove your expertise over say my "opinions."
Nick
. . . and sure it may be 'unfalsifiable' but it can be seen as 'prose poetry of the sublime' - to quote Harold Bloom . . . .
Then is has more in common with the artistic than the scientific.
I've heard well respected cognitive psychologists express astonishment at how much Freud's ideas made sense when they heard them explained clearly
I'd be interested in hearing these explanations/re-articulations.
Unequivocally Top Class!....RNC
A Must Read!...R. Limbaugh
Just the way I like it. Direct and to the Point....B. O'Reilly
So Good it reminds me of myself!....Ann Coulter
Lawsuit
Some interesting points...
During Pioneer High?s ?2002 Diversity Week,? held this past March, the school sponsored various events, including student speeches given at an all school assembly and panel discussions on various issues such as race, religion, and ?Homosexuality and Religion.? Although Betsy was permitted to give a speech during the student assembly, she was required to submit her speech to school officials for their prior approval. School officials removed all references critical of homosexual activity.
Hmmm...no censorship or thought control there...
In order to further achieve their purpose with this panel discussion, school officials selected and invited certain religious leaders and clergy members who would promote and endorse their pro-homosexual ?religious? belief. School officials denied Betsy?s request to have panel members present who would express the Roman Catholic belief on homosexual activity. School officials also pre-screened questions for the panel members, selected the faculty advisor for the Gay Straight Alliance to act as ?moderator,? prohibited ?open? questions to panel members, and expressly prohibited the students from personally interacting with any panel member before, during, or after the panel discussion.
Moreover, to ensure that only a particular religious belief regarding homosexuality was presented during the student panel discussion on religion, which immediately followed the discussion on ?Religion and Homosexuality,? school officials created written guidelines that prohibited, among other things, student panel members from making comments that ?target? another person?s ?sexual orientation.?
Isn't it amazing that the left will claim "Under god" in the pledge is religious coercion. That having clergy speak during commencement ceremonies is coercion. However having an entire panel of religious leaders promoting the homosexual lifestyle is in no way religious coercion. Even when they were selected by the school administration and staff members. Likewise according to this it was a school sponsored forum and the gay/straight student club was allowed to have the teacher who sponsors them act as the moderator. The state is not allowed to endorse one particular religion. Having a religious panel during diversity week in which you exclude someone's religion while promoting others is a Constitutional violation. No matter how little or much you agree with their views it is a violation. How is a religious panel chosen by school administrators and moderated by a teacher not somehow be an endorsement of religious views by the state?
This federal civil rights lawsuit challenges these actions, alleging that school officials violated Betsy?s constitutional rights to freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and the equal protection of the law. Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that school officials violated the Establishment Clause by impermissibly promoting and endorsing the religious belief that homosexual activity is compatible with religion, by conveying the impermissible message of disapproval of the Roman Catholic belief that homosexual activity is immoral and sinful, and by coercing students to accept and support the religious belief that homosexual activity is not immoral or sinful.
The judges ruling, it is clearly violating free speech, freedom of religion and equal protection.
Of course only in the leftist la, la, land would screening questions, editing speeches for content, speech codes about what can be asked or spoken, and of course clear denial of certain people to participate be "free speech" and "diversity."
You folks will deserve the police state you advocate.
Nick
"Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians?"
That's a fine source that conveys your viewpoint, but what about the school's?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Thomas More Law Center?
"Defending the Religious Freedom of Christians?"
That's a fine source that conveys your viewpoint, but what about the school's?
Questioning the source when you don't have an arguement to stand on? You are becoming so predictable Shawn.
You can answer the questions regardless of their source. If the school set up the forum, choose the moderator and the religious speakers who all advocated one view, is that an endorsement or religion? You can add the nice disclaimer that you don't know if this school did those particular actions, but if they did they would be.... right...wrong... an endorsement or religion, etc.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Last time I checked the school mentioned didn't have any prohibitions on who attended. Tell me how the diversity week would "increase diversity." Would a certain percentage of the population suddenly change their sexual orientation? It was not attempting to increase diversity. It was attempting to unify thought around once concept, that all religions find homosexuality acceptable. That doesn't increase diversity and it doesn't present reality.
What are you talking about? I can't tell you if it would be successful, it's not my gig anyway.
I guess those self-proclaimed "liberals" are just a bunch of hypocrites, huh? Them and their Jew buddies! I guess they figure they can brain-wash everybody into believing the PC line about Jews and then they can move on with the great liberal/Jew takeover! So much for tolerance! IT'S JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!
Originally posted by trumptman
Questioning the source when you don't have an arguement to stand on? You are becoming so predictable Shawn.
You can answer the questions regardless of their source. If the school set up the forum, choose the moderator and the religious speakers who all advocated one view, is that an endorsement or religion? You can add the nice disclaimer that you don't know if this school did those particular actions, but if they did they would be.... right...wrong... an endorsement or religion, etc.
Nick
Okay, Nick, here's what I think about the whole thing.
The forum itself was a good idea because its goal was to increase tolerance in the school towards homosexuality. Belligerent attitudes towards gay students is never a good thing when you're dealing with high school students. And it appears that the forum was needed to offset a seemingly vocal student club that advocated against homosexuality. While it appears heavy-handed of the school to include only speakers who agreed with the conclusion that homosexuality is ultimately acceptable to religion, it's really not. That's because the school offered to hold the same type of forum with the opposing viewpoint. In all fairness, the school offered equal opportunities to its student groups concerned with issues of homosexuality. By law it is required to. That's the biggest part of the case, and I believe you're wrong to say that anyone was excluded without a fair chance to participate.
I think you and I would both agree that the problem is that the opposing viewpoint was excluded- undeniably. We would both agree that the Pioneers for Christ turned down the opportunity to hold a similar forum with the opposing viewpoint. That was their chance to participate, and it was the same chance given to the other club. Now there wouldn't be a problem had the Pioneers for Christ not turned down their chance. Given the circumstances of the forum, it is ultimately their fault the opposing viewpoint was not heard.
Now I understand your other arguments here as well: that the forum wouldn't be held during Diversity Week, etc. But I don't think that matters as much as you think. I'd also like to qualify a few of my statements. The problem I see with the whole thing, regardless of whether two forums were held instead of one, is the closed nature of the questioning part. I think it's perfectly fine that two separate forums be held with opposing viewpoints, but I find it unacceptable that students were not able to freely question the speakers. I hope you would agree.
Please no smart ass sarcastic comments because I really tried that time.
Originally posted by addabox
Hey, I heard there was going to be a "religious tolerance" seminar, and guess what they did? They told the nice man that was going to explain why God hates Jews and how the Jews secretly control all the money and banks and how the Jews killed Christ our Lord, they told him he couldn't come! He wasn't even allowed to speak! How is that "religious tolerance"? It's not like the nice man "hates" Jews, he just has a different viewpoint! Lots of people think the same thing about Jews, shouldn't their voices be heard?
I guess those self-proclaimed "liberals" are just a bunch of hypocrites, huh? Them and their Jew buddies! I guess they figure they can brain-wash everybody into believing the PC line about Jews and then they can move on with the great liberal/Jew takeover! So much for tolerance! IT'S JUST LIKE NAZI GERMANY!
WOW!
Most of the Jew hating propaganda is propagated by the political left and their operachiks. Your disgusting post above being a case in point.
Originally posted by majorspunk
WOW!
Most of the Jew hating propaganda is propagated by the political left and their operachiks. Your disgusting post being a case in post.
I liked it better when you trolled with smilies. Something about opening your mouth and removing all doubt?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I liked it better when you trolled with smilies. Something about opening your mouth and removing all doubt?
Or is that just a troll with smilies?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Okay, Nick, here's what I think about the whole thing.
The forum itself was a good idea because its goal was to increase tolerance in the school towards homosexuality. Belligerent attitudes towards gay students is never a good thing when you're dealing with high school students. And it appears that the forum was needed to offset a seemingly vocal student club that advocated against homosexuality. While it appears heavy-handed of the school to include only speakers who agreed with the conclusion that homosexuality is ultimately acceptable to religion, it's really not. That's because the school offered to hold the same type of forum with the opposing viewpoint. In all fairness, the school offered equal opportunities to its student groups concerned with issues of homosexuality. By law it is required to. That's the biggest part of the case, and I believe you're wrong to say that anyone was excluded without a fair chance to participate.
I think you and I would both agree that the problem is that the opposing viewpoint was excluded- undeniably. We would both agree that the Pioneers for Christ turned down the opportunity to hold a similar forum with the opposing viewpoint. That was their chance to participate, and it was the same chance given to the other club. Now there wouldn't be a problem had the Pioneers for Christ not turned down their chance. Given the circumstances of the forum, it is ultimately their fault the opposing viewpoint was not heard.
Now I understand your other arguments here as well: that the forum wouldn't be held during Diversity Week, etc. But I don't think that matters as much as you think. I'd also like to qualify a few of my statements. The problem I see with the whole thing, regardless of whether two forums were held instead of one, is the closed nature of the questioning part. I think it's perfectly fine that two separate forums be held with opposing viewpoints, but I find it unacceptable that students were not able to freely question the speakers. I hope you would agree.
Please no smart ass sarcastic comments because I really tried that time.
No sarcastic comments, here. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. A couple hairs to split so that I can fully understand your thinking.
Do you think the vocal student group is that way on their own? Do you think they became more vocal because there was a gay/straight student group? Do you think they are more vocal because administration has taken a clear side and is advocating for one group over another?
From my own perspective, and I will qualify this with the fact that there was one more article at the Thomas More Center dealing with the school, The Pioneer Club, etc. However it wasn't related to this specific incident and so I didn't post it considering that some people would already question the source. (Not being sarcastic, it was true) It seems the administration also passed a non-discrimination code that it sounds like also contained speech codes. The "activists" on the campus tried to get the Pioneer club tossed for not agreeing to the codes. So it seems there might be antagonism from more than the Pioneer club itself. Likewise since the other parties seem to have the support of administration, and certain actions seem aimed specifically at the Pioneer club, it might harden their positions and actions a bit. (just my view, no way to support it)
Board changes policy under threat of lawsuit
I'm just going to have to disagree with you though on the seperate but equal thing regarding the forums. So be it though.
I do agree that the closed questioning of any party, on any meetings that would be held is not acceptable.
Now again, thanks for the thoughtful post. I would ask you to comment, with qualifiers if need be, about the state endorsement of religion. One article didn't really address who choose the participating religious leaders. The Thomas More piece mentions they were chosen by administration. The issue is less clear with student selection of religion, but pretty clear in my opinion about school leaders or administrators selecting religious folks. Did the fact that the forum contained (possibly) religious leaders only selected by administration and staff constitute a state endorsement of a religion?
Thanks again,
Nick
Originally posted by majorspunk
WOW!
Most of the Jew hating propaganda is propagated by the political left and their operachiks. Your disgusting post above being a case in point.
Irony not your strong point.