The teen deleted his Twitter photo and posted a couple “srsly guise, please stop” messages.
Seems like he just wanted to wear a shirt he liked, not become a catalyst for people’s political, religious and sexuality views.
I have known Christians personally who have been told to turn their shirts inside out. I have been told by teachers that I was not allowed to even bring my Bible to school. I have known college professors who just fail Christians (this is very common especially in ethics or humanities classes). Persecution in the military is also on the rise. Yes it happens.
Student denied admission because of his Christianity
Military Religious Freedom Foundation Targeting Christians
And did you report these professors to the college ethics board for doing so?
Or are you fibbing about this to try and drive your point home?
10 Likes
You can quote the Bible all you want, but that doesn’t give you the right to force your beliefs on others, in public schools or anywhere else. If Christians are being treated unfairly because of their religion, that shouldn’t be happening and is a problem. You seem to realize that, so why don’t you feel it’s a problem when people are being treated unfairly because of their sexual preference?
6 Likes
It’s Ohio; but it’s also a symbol of a (wildly common implicitly, sometimes made explicit, often by conservatives who turn out to have…rather a lot of personal experience…to the amusement of all) ‘framing’ problem:
Because ‘the homosexual’, as a nebulous class over which political controversy occurs, is defined pretty much exclusively by their sexual preferences(both because their enemies like to harp on them, for being transgressive and squicky; and because homosexuality appears to occur at modest, but more or less utterly random and uniform-at-population-level, so there aren’t any good proxy variables, except for the true-but-banal ‘umm, actually pretty much just like everyone else; because they are’); there is a tendency to treat support for the political rights of homosexuals as being some sort of overtly sexual statement, and then proceed to react to it as a school would be expected to.
That two-part attack doesn’t make it any more right(if anything, the ‘you, homo, basically everything you do is subordinate to your freaky sex stuff’ message is about as invidious as it comes); but it makes it sneakier: pretty much all school districts would likely react badly to a T-shirt printed with a choice selection of sexual terminology; the sleight-of-hand trick is conflating a mere expression of support for the right of homosexuals to go about their business with explicit sexual commentary.
3 Likes
Also important: philosophy and humanities classes are among the ones that more frequently demand that a student be able to examine so-and-so’s theory of moral something or other; read it, demonstrate an understanding of it; write some papers exploring its facets and commenting on it, and so forth. You don’t need to swear fealty to it(or even make it clear where you personally stand on the matter); but if you can’t handle a ‘for the sake of argument, it’s Kant time!’, you can’t handle the course. In my own(not even Phil-major, experience, I don’t think I ever took a class where I wasn’t required to ‘for sake of argument’ at least one position with which I profoundly disagreed).
Given this, it’s always important to check the ‘Student flunked for being Christian!’ story to see if they were flunked for their belief state(wholly unacceptable, blatant misconduct on the part of the professor), or whether they were flunked for refusing to actually do any of the work and just repeating their personal commitment to divine command ethics, or whatever christianity’s position in a given area of philosophy is.
If a philosophy class demands your belief, the professor is running a particularly dry cult. If it simply demands your ability to competently interact with a complex system of ideas, regardless of your prior positions on the matter, that’s the whole point. I don’t doubt that there are cases of the former, and they are unacceptable. However, inability to distinguish between the former and the latter is a fairly common flavor of confusion.
15 Likes
I choose Squirtle!
10 Likes
So according to one highly questionable source you’ve cited a couple of examples of Christians allegedly being discriminated against. Are you suggesting that makes it acceptable for Christians to discriminate against others?
If you’re going to cite an example, though, do your research. You might want to rely on someone who doesn’t have a criminal record that includes drug charges before you allege that they were discriminated against solely because of their faith.
5 Likes
Ah, I forgot about that side of it. My bio prof told us he’d failed some religious folk because they walked out on a test on evolution, saying that Darwin was the Devil’s disciple and his theories were wrong. So the prof didn’t fail them for their religion - he failed them for their ignorance and lack of critical thinking skills. Plus, you know, walking out on a test.
10 Likes
I’ll be back…got to take the dog out etc - and before your twisted mind kicks into gear, I’m not dogging, that’ll be your department, probably 
You made several comments without resorting to personal insults. It’s a pity you had to go and wreck that.
1 Like
Let Hanglyman comment on that, it was directed at him and I did include a smiley face to suggest it was a joke and not an insult, I think Hanglyman would be cool on that.
If you’re going to insult someone in a public forum don’t be surprised if someone other than the person you’ve directly addressed also wants to comment on it, especially when you’ve set yourself up as an arbiter of morality.
5 Likes
Quite sanctimonious of yourself. I explained it was a joke, why are you choosing to be offended, and again, it was not addressed to you, rather to someone, who I gather, does have a sense of humour - or does your militant attitude forbid jokes outside your closeted inner circle.
Not really. You didn’t answer my question and implied I rape dogs (I think?). The smiley face doesn’t make it funny because there’s not really a joke there, aside from “Get it? Because only Christians have morals!”, which just seems to reflect your actual beliefs. In any case, I’m at a con for the weekend now, so enjoy having the last word.
6 Likes
Not to defend them, but the phrase “dogging” isn’t what you think it is. Probably best not to google it at work though!
1 Like
From the recent replies I can only conclude that the term ‘Gay’ only has one meaning, it certainly cannot
mean ‘happy’, as you come across as the most sour, miserable lemons (that is an insult by the way, no smiley face this time) I’ve ever had the misfortune to engage with - such bitter fruits you are !
Dogging does not mean ‘rape dogs’ - why would that be the first thing to cross your mind ?
I have two problems with using the Bible as some sort of justification for the shit gays get. And this is coming from a Christian.
First off, being gay isn’t a sin. It says gay sex. And I think the Bible is talking about casual, hedonistic sex. Every sexual sin in the Bible stems from the sin of lust. At the same time sex can be an expression of love, which Jesus is all for.
In the past there are many cultures, including the Romans during Christ’s time, who practiced gay sex, but were not in fact gay. While the concept sound foreign to us, we do see it today in prison culture and some cultures in the Middle East where men will have sex with each other for fun. They didn’t have the same sex attraction, per se of a gay person, but they enjoyed how the sex acts feel. I think that is what the Bible warns about. Not being gay and having sex as an expression of love.
But let us just assume all gay sex is a sin. So what? How often are gays having sex? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? I guarantee your average straight person is committing as many or more sexual sins per month than your average gay person (via masturbation alone).
People condemn the “gay life style”. WTF is that? Other than if they had sex that day, their day is probably nearly identical to yours and mine. Yes there are some gays who are all about chasing tail and getting laid - just like tons of straight people.
If you want to condemn or write off gays because they have sinful sex, you will have to write off the rest of the human race. Even if they aren’t committing sexual sins, everyone sins everyday. There are indeed gay people who are immoral, but being gay doesn’t make them automatically immoral.
Let’s remember Proverbs 16:5 anytime you think you are better than someone or some how less sinful: “Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished.”
11 Likes
Pshaw, if this Jesus fella wants to live up to his hype he’ll have to dick-slap every single evangelist alive upon his grand return. Same as those money-changers every damn one.
4 Likes
