California: The common-sense state
It took about two thousand years of Christian theology before someone discovered in the penumbras of Scripture an approval for homosexuality. Since then we’ve made up for lost time, such that people can be incensed that a Christian school in California expelled two students for lesbian behavior. Adding to the outrage is the recent decision by an appeals court that the school is not a business, and hence need not comply with state anti-discrimination laws. And in the Free Love State, no less.
The particulars aren’t easy to sort out, because the girls, who alluded to their non-hetero status on their MySpace pages, have since concluded that such talk violates their privacy. Their former principal alleges further that they admitted to him hugging, kissing, and telling other students that they are lesbians. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that the matter was brought to teachers by another student at the school.
Lawyers for the girls tried to deny all, and accused the principal of having a sexual interest in the girls. The court was having none of that. It’s difficult to argue that the school had no proof of lesbian behavior while simultaneously claiming that the students were discriminated against for the lesbian behavior that never happened. Then again, one would think it difficult to conclude that the Bible condones homosexual sex, but that hasn’t stopped Bishop Spong from discovering otherwise.
What’s fascinating is that fully grown, educated adults believe that a school founded specifically for the purpose of propagating Christian dogma should be compelled to include students who wish to trample the portions of that dogma they find unsuitable. In this age of torturing the Bible until it confesses whatever one desires, one is free to believe that it celebrates homosexual sex, or that it affords animals equal rights with humans, or that it magically turns circles into squares. One is equally free to start one’s own school, for the express purpose of teaching children to espy square circles in the interstices of Genesis.
But one is not free, at least for the time being, to sign a statement upon enrolling in a school advocating A, that one will abide by and affirm A, and then traipse about the hallways declaring not A. Some will call this a gross violation of human rights. It seems closer to common sense. And here some of us were thinking there was no common sense left in California.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top52 Comments to “California: The common-sense state”
Tony, as a native Californian I will agree that there are some Californians with some common sense, but we still keep electing Democrats. For those who may think voting Democratic is an acceptable belief, ’splain the $42 billion deficit?
It is against the law for the state to spend more than it takes in. California has to have a balanced budget. It doesn’t. Democrats are breaking the law.
Report comment to moderator
Spong, “A just and moral society cannot be erected on a premise that some human beings are subhuman or perverted, not on the basis of their doing but on the basis of their being.” (This is from his article on homosexuality from the website.)
Actually a Christian worldview should stipulate that all human beings are perverted on the basis of their being. Their doing is simply the outworking of their being. I’m fairly certain you can never have a truly just and moral society in this fallen world. Just more or less so.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
This is really a contractual dispute. If you contract/pledge to obey rule X and you violate it, you are wrong.
Those penumbras can sneak up on you every time.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think as a matter of legal policy private Christian schools should be forbidden from expelling gay students. And I also don’t think orthodox biblical theology teaches anything positive about homosexuality. However, as a matter of proper decision making I don’t know why the school should have expelled these students. I think it would have said something for the school if they on the one hand, stuck to their theological guns, but on the other, showed kindness in permitting such dissidents to get an education there.
Report comment to moderator
Is it more accurate to describe someone as a gay Christians or a Christian who is gay. The choice of noun and modifier seems to be quite predictive of the tack folks will take with this and other cases. But it is precisely the lack of agreemt which is the heart of this and so many other church/homo controversy.
Note one seldom hears anyone say “I’m a Christian heterosexual” or “I’m a heterosexual Christian”.
The expelled students failed to learn the main lesson of Abu Gharib: never generate the evidence your prosecutors will use against you.
If its on Facebook or Myspace its out there for one and all, kids.
Report comment to moderator
Bishop Spong doesnt believe in the Virgin Birth either. Did this guy get his seminary ordination by taking multiple guess fill-in-the-bubble correspondence courses from a diploma mill seminary??!
To bad Richard John Neuhaus isnt around to show him the error of his heretical ways.
Report comment to moderator
Actually being gay violates the lefty claim (and Darwin belief) of the survival of the fittest and proper evolution. It is a recessive dead end mutant trait that will, if the survival of the fittest is true, eventually kill itself off genetically, if you are a true believing whack job.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
Neither one is accurate. You don’t label Christians by their sins: “I’m an alcoholic Christian or I’m a Christian alcoholic.” Even if the girls repent of their sin the school should still have the authority to expel them. Actions have consequences and the school should be allowed to exercise the option it deems the most appropriate (education is a privilege, not a right).
Mike
Report comment to moderator
No one can show Bishop Spong the error of his ways. He makes it up as he goes along, and you don’t really see any Scriptural authority in there, do you? The man hasn’t been right since his wife died of cancer, and I’ll bet he wasn’t wrapped too tightly before.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll grant private schools are social organizations may breach anti-discrimination laws. However, to raise an reductio absurdum by this measure the Klu Klux Klan is a social organization who should be free to operate. The state does need to be involved at some point.
Assuming that its a day school, to what degree should the school involve themselves in off school behaviour? A don’t ask, don’t tell seems more appropriate.
In part this episode stems from the North American tendency to either/or choices or black and white moral choices. The two girls appeared to have been more public than they should have been with sexual confusion which isn’t too unusual at that age. In fact, hugging and kissing maybe nothing more than overly exuberant demonstration of friendship but in the context of a rigid conservative upbringing could lead to sexual doubts and lead the kids to wonder what side of the fence they are on.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
I won’t defend this school’s actions since I don’t know anything about them, but a school isn’t generally going to involve itself in off school behavior until and unless that behavior comes to light in a way that necessitates involvement. The school would rightfully expect a certain level of moral behavior from its students and teachers both in and out of school. This certainly doesn’t make everything black and white, but I think the gray areas are better dealt with by the school rather than the state. Parents will pull their kids if they don’t like the school’s policies.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
The KKK exists. It’s called Freedom of Association in the United States.
You can’t complain that something is out there when you put it out there yourself. The girls’ actions in posting on a public site which was seen by others in the school caused it to be brought into the school. Parents who pay for a certain type of school so that their children will not be exposed to “confusion” have a right to get what they pay for.
Report comment to moderator
“Spong, “A just and moral society cannot be erected on a premise that some human beings are subhuman or perverted, not on the basis of their doing but on the basis of their being.”
Homosexual behavior is “their doing,” not “their being.” A sane and moral society cannot be erected on defining “their being,” by “their doing,” and then making criticism of “their doing” off limits by pretnding it is about “their being.”
Report comment to moderator
Actually being gay violates the lefty claim (and Darwin belief) of the survival of the fittest and proper evolution. It is a recessive dead end mutant trait that will, if the survival of the fittest is true, eventually kill itself off genetically, if you are a true believing whack job.
I have some articles I can share with you from expert evolutionary biologists who refute this.
Report comment to moderator
No Ken, the homosexual orientation does exist; it is a part of a person’s being. The proper response isn’t to deny reality but rather to note the orientation of a “homosexual person” doesn’t justify acting on it.
Personally I don’t think there’s anything wrong with same sex behavior, but orientation plays little into it. If a homosexual wants to have heterosexual sex or a heterosexual wants to have homosexual sex, that’s fine because there is nothing wrong with either.
Report comment to moderator
That is a personal view, of course. It is not God’s view.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
You are right it is a personal view; but I also don’t believe in the divine inspiration of those particular proof texts in the Bible that condemn homosexual behavior and I don’t think it’s possible to prove they exist as a matter of moral certainty.
The other argument against homosexuality — the natural law argument — condemns homosexuality along the same lines as it condemns maturbation, oral sex, and contraception even between married Christian couples. The line of reasoning is airtight, but you still have to accept the entire theory or the natural law chain falls apart. And I don’t think most of us do.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexual “orientation” does exist and it does so by the life choices of those who cultivate it, along with other factors that serve to instill it (over time) into the human heart and mind. Take out the choice factor from the question of how and who we love and the being can then be seen as NOTHING more than a machine or animal acting on pure instinct or genetic impulse. That is dehumanizing to the core.
First a man makes his habits, then his habits make the man.
Report comment to moderator
It has just been discovered that the Bible actually does not teach that people need to repent of their sins! Imagine that!
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing chosen or cultivated about the homosexual orientation. You can choose to act on it or not; that’s the only choice involved.
Report comment to moderator
The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, D.D., always presents himself as a Christian. He wrote, “I define myself above all things as a believer. I am indeed a passionate believer…”
But this is a curious claim in light several competing claims Spong also makes:
1. He claims not to be a theist and that theism (belief in God) is dead!
2. He dismisses as barbaric the idea that Jesus saves us from sin on a cross.
3. He detests the Bible with dripping disgust.
4. He celebrates homosexuality and other forms of sexual chaos.
5. He thinks the incarnation of Jesus is a bankrupt idea.
6. He is an unquestioning devoted disciple of Charles Darwin.
7. He denies that physical resuscitation ever occurs.
8. He dismisses prayer and all the miracle stories in the Bible.
9. He’s passionate that guilt should not be a motivation for human behavior.
10. He presumes that life after death will have nothing to do with judgment or accountability.
In other words, his self definition and the context of same indicates that he thinks his readers are stupid, “doorknob stupid.”
* Spong does not believe we need to be rescued from sin and evil. He does, however, strongly believe we need to be rescued from people who do believe that sin and evil actually exist and need to be resisted.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I seriously doubt you accurately represent Spong. For instance:
“1. He claims not to be a theist and that theism (belief in God) is dead!”
doesn’t seem to comport with:
“10. He presumes that life after death will have nothing to do with judgment or accountability.”
How does he believe in life after death without God. I know he believes he will meet St. Paul in Heaven because he said so in a debate I watched of his.
Report comment to moderator
“5. He thinks the incarnation of Jesus is a bankrupt idea.”
Heh. So did John Adams.
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
Maybe we could say Spong is a “Christian” in the John Adams sense of the term.
Report comment to moderator
#20, “There is nothing chosen or cultivated about the homosexual orientation.”
That view is dehumanizing, in my view.
I also think it is dehumanizing to drive a stark and artificial contrast between the ‘behaving’ and ‘being’ aspects of human beings. They are not the same things, of course, but such aspects are integrated in actual living human beings, regardless of what academics theorize about them.
Real human beings CAN choose actions AND attitudes. There are other motivating factors in the mix too but it is dehumanizing to eliminate the human will.
Report comment to moderator
“That view is dehumanizing, in my view.”
What I wrote is an accurate view. And I never said it trumps choice or will. Though, if a homosexual person chooses to life a chaste life, there probably will be serious struggle.
Report comment to moderator
Jon #17,
Do believe any part of the Bible is divinely inspired? If so which parts?
Mike
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone understand Tony Woodlief’s post, because he seems to be hiding his purpose from the profane. “It’s none of your business what we do to homosexuals in our school, because the courts say we can. If you want homosexuals, start your own school.” Did you get that too?
He seems to be annoyed with students who change their minds about “A” after signing statements about “A.” In Christian schools, a mind is a terrible thing to change.
With regard to students’ freedom of speech, Tony tells it slightly wrong. The school can expel students whom it deems to be abominations, but the students may legally traipse the hallways declaring whatever they please about “A” , within the limits of local profanity laws, until the police come and arrest them for trespass (refusal to leave). You don’t lose your rights to speak when you’re invited onto someone else’s property. This technicality is only interesting because Tony seems to have some trouble with it.
Inquiring minds want to know, what must I do and/or feel and/or say to get expelled. Call upon the Name of St. Judy? Tony does not appear to want to talk about what “murky particulars” run students afoul of the Bible. Could just saying that you’re gay, for example, be equivalent to making a joke about post-9/11 security matters on an airplane? What about kissing and hugging to “find out” if you want to go further?
Report comment to moderator
#22, “I seriously doubt you accurately represent Spong. For instance.”
I have read Spong extensively and carefully and I have reported his claims honestly. Spong’s duplicity is the reason for the contradictions. Much that Spong writes does NOT comport with his conflicting claims.
But your mind is made up, I realize.
Report comment to moderator
I seriously doubt you accurately represent John Adams. Your twisting selectivity regarding his thoughts just represents your own image of him, and not John Adams at all, in my view. You have recreated Adams in your own image many times over.
But Adams is not around to defend himself. Spong continues to write, frequently contradicting himself every step of the way.
Report comment to moderator
#29 was to Jon Rowe.
Report comment to moderator
#25, Jon Rowe wrote; “And I never said it trumps choice or will.”
Oh really?
But at #20, Jon Rowe had written, “There is nothing chosen or cultivated about the homosexual orientation. You can choose to act on it or not; that’s the only choice involved.”
So, you did indeed actually convey that homosexuality trumps choice (i.e. that nothing is chosen about it). Jon Rowe, You contradict yourself.
It is VERY dehumanizing to deny that choice is a crucial factor in homosexuality and many other orientations and behaviors related to who and how human beings love (both in deed and in preference).
Report comment to moderator
MICKEY: If you see this, it’s time for an update to Eight Times the Joy. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, #32 is on the wrong thread.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
John Adams bitterly rejected the Incarnation. There are no two ways around it.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I did not contradict myself. A homosexual person will always be a homosexual person even if he chooses never to have sex, which in, the realm of an individual having the free will to make every voluntary choice, is theoretically possible, though not practical in my opinion. It’s a bit like telling birds they ought not fly.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
I think it’s bizzare that you accuse me of trying to remake John Adams in my image when it’s obvious that you want him to be a “Christian” as you understand the term, i.e., in YOUR image.
John Adams thought of himself as a “liberal unitarian Christian.” If you can reject the original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible and eternal damnation (which Adams did) and still be a “Christian,” then John Adams was a “Christian.”
Report comment to moderator
Mike,
I’m not convinced any of the Bible is divinely inspired. Though, I’m open minded. And I am convinced (like Ben Franklin) that parts of the Bible are impossible to be divinely inspired.
Report comment to moderator
Merry Christmas (happy Incarnation Day) to Jon Rowe.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with the stark contrast Jon Rowe creates to distinguish human behavior and being. I see the two as different but very integrated and I see human choice active in both realms.
I disagree with Jon Rowe that “A homosexual person will always be a homosexual person even if he chooses never to have sex.”
The “homosexual” label is too politicized and too vague to apply to stark hypothetical categories to describe of diverse human behavior and/or being. And it does not constitute some unchangeable status in the human being. It’s just a word some people made up to describe themselves and others.
Also, a genuine human being has the capacity to BECOME something different (not just to “DO” something different), and God has the power to help him. The capacity to change is what distinguishes us for programmed robots or animals driven by genes or instincts.
Human beings are not “birds” Jon. We are human beings and we have choices related to who we are, what we do, why we do it and what attitude or character quality to take on or not.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe, you have misunderstood and mis-stated my view on John Adams. I don’t “want him to be a Christian” at all and I have not said so. You made that up. I have been critical, however, of you trying to dogmatically deny that he is a Christian. You don’t know him and you cannot know if you repented of his sins honestly before God or not. You can select particular quotes that make Adams say things you want to use to twist out a judgment on his faith out of his actual human context, but that does not necessarily wash.
I have not tried to make or remake Adams into anything. That’s your obsession and you seem to see it in others too. I just think you go to far to judge him and his faith. His body of writing includes a tremendous amout of respect and advocasy of Christianity and you ignore that.
My impression is that John Adams was a free-thinking Christian. I might differ with him on many points of doctrine, but I do not claim to know where he stood with God regarding his repentance and the forgiveness of his sins. But he saw himself as a free-thinking Christian.
John Adams had a Puritan heritage that he treasured but did not embrace in all ways. But he did embrace it in many ways as a free-thinker. He was a life-long Congregatiohnalist.
Report comment to moderator
Joel,
We seemed to be talking past one another on both issues, esp. the John Adams.
I could care less whether he had a last minute thief on the cross conversion to orthodox Christianity. Pat Boone, by the way, says he converted Rock Hudson, a lifelong unapologetic homosexual, on his death bed. He said Hudson couldn’t even speak by this time, but he knew it in his eyes. He claims to have sent Hudson off to Heaven. Who knows.
With Adams all I care about is what he wrote and spoke about his entire life. He considered himself a “liberal unitarian Christian” (his exact words) and rejected original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible and eternal damnation. That’s what he believed throughout his entire adult life.
Report comment to moderator
Also, a genuine human being has the capacity to BECOME something different (not just to “DO” something different), and God has the power to help him. The capacity to change is what distinguishes us for programmed robots or animals driven by genes or instincts.
The best scientific evidence shows that, however the homosexual orientation comes about, people do NOT change it. It stays with you your entire life. Even if you can point to a few “miracles,” they are the exception not the rule. You will end up lying to and causing a great deal of resentment from homosexually oriented Christians who wish to remain chaste if you tell them change into functioning heterosexuality is around the corner. It isn’t. They just have to grin and bear it and attempt to sublimate their sexual energy. Is it no wonder that so many homosexual persons have become Priests.
Report comment to moderator
You can select particular quotes that make Adams say things you want to use to twist out a judgment on his faith out of his actual human context, but that does not necessarily wash.
You cannot find anything in Adams’ writings that contradicts the basics of his adult creed that I set out: He considered himself a “liberal unitarian Christian” (his exact words) and rejected original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible and eternal damnation. He also had a test for what is a Christian: “Good people” are Christians.
Report comment to moderator
“Penumbras” of scripture – nice metaphor – the Bible does cast a rather dark shadow over the human spirit.
Let there be light, and forget the shadowy and evil Christian Bible altogether.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I never said anything about “last minute thief on the cross conversion to orthodox Christianity.” So again, you are responding to something I never said.
Good for Pat Boone.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe wrote; “The best scientific evidence shows that, however the homosexual orientation comes about, people do NOT change it.”
There is more to the whole human being than just science. There are some things about human beings and how we love and how we choose to love others and why and with whom that “scince” alone CANNOT begin to answer. But still, I disagree with your statement even from the scientific perspective.
I am not a reductionist. The nature of the human will, our creation in God’s image and the power of God Himself all means that change or transformation “by the renewing of our minds” (Romans 12:2) is fully possible for all human beings. In Christ, we are nade new. It may not be quick or easy too.
Some sins and addictions to sin need not stay with us for the rest of our lives. In other words, I actually believe that hope is possible.
Report comment to moderator
On past threads I think I have already offered many John Adams quotes that contradict what you seem to be saying about him or that simply put his faith perspectives in a different light that you try to keep them in. I could run them again, but I’ll leave it at that for now.
Enjoy your evening.
Report comment to moderator
No Joel. Everything you offered from John Adams (when you quote the words that actually came from his mouth) talking up the Christian religion is consistent with what I’ve written about him here.
Report comment to moderator
I never said anything about “last minute thief on the cross conversion to orthodox Christianity.” So again, you are responding to something I never said.
To the contrary Joel, you implied it. You spoke of how what I wrote about Adams was so terribly judgmental as though I consigned him to Hell. From what I know about God, atheists get into Heaven as to most if not everyone eventually.
But *even if* your specific theological view (that differs from mine) is true, I still didn’t “judge” Adams in that sense, because for all I know Adams had a deathbed conversion to your kind of orthodox Christianity on his deathbed that no one witnessed or wrote about.
Report comment to moderator
Joel doesn’t know the first thing about gay people, so it’s laughable to see his ignorant pronouncements about us.
The assertion that gay people choose their sexual orientation is the prime underpinning for the whole conservative Christian justification for the legal and social persecution of gay people. You take that away, and they don’t have a leg to stand on.
In fact, it’s conservative Christians like Joel who dehumanizes gay people, not the other way around.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Ultimately it is irrelevant whether people choose their sexual orientation or not.
People come into the world with a sinful nature. We don’t get to choose whether we have that sinful nature or not. We are still guilty before God for having it. It all goes back to Adam.
So God holds us accountable for our disposition and our actions.
Mike
Report comment to moderator
#46 What a bunch of nonsense Joel. Your entire thought process is clearly clouded by an umbra of delusional interpretation of scripture and outdated western philosophical idealogies.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!