School Board Member Outraged over Patriotic T Shirts

[bodecea]

I saw it....and everything Todd Starnes says is a lie.


BTW...where are all those con-servatives who were outraged over the altering of the American flag when Former President Obama was in office?

You mean you refuse to accept the truth as it doesn't fit your point of view.

Todd Starnes is a lying liar and because he wraps it all up in christianity, the trumpanzees swallow it.

 

[BS Filter]

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact.

Because I do not know enough about it, including the context in which it arose, I don't want to research it right now, and I would never trust your description of it. Right-wingers are known to strip something of all context and content, which is grossly dishonest.

How are you against an entire 1.5 billion religion? That's pretty ignorant. Are you going to blame every Christian in the world for the actions of some folks like graham or jeffress or some of these monkey pastors babbling about anti-gays and encouraging violence against them or eric rudolph or robert dear? Every religion has its garbage.

What's ignorant is to defend something you know nothing about. I've studied Islam and Christianity. I know and understand both of the religions. You defend a religion simply because there are 1.5 billion members? That's ignorant. Why would you defend a religion that believes wives are to submit or be beaten? Christianity doesn't. You've never studied the Quran or the bible. I have. You're the ignorant one here.

 

[BS Filter]

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact.

Because I do not know enough about it, including the context in which it arose, I don't want to research it right now, and I would never trust your description of it. Right-wingers are known to strip something of all context and content, which is grossly dishonest.

How are you against an entire 1.5 billion religion? That's pretty ignorant. Are you going to blame every Christian in the world for the actions of some folks like graham or jeffress or some of these monkey pastors babbling about anti-gays and encouraging violence against them or eric rudolph or robert dear? Every religion has its garbage.

Then you choose to remain ignorant. You admit you don't know enough about it and you don't want to research it. You're lazy and ignorant.

 

[Lysistrata]

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact.

Because I do not know enough about it, including the context in which it arose, I don't want to research it right now, and I would never trust your description of it. Right-wingers are known to strip something of all context and content, which is grossly dishonest.

How are you against an entire 1.5 billion religion? That's pretty ignorant. Are you going to blame every Christian in the world for the actions of some folks like graham or jeffress or some of these monkey pastors babbling about anti-gays and encouraging violence against them or eric rudolph or robert dear? Every religion has its garbage.

What's ignorant is to defend something you know nothing about. I've studied Islam and Christianity. I know and understand both of the religions. You defend a religion simply because there are 1.5 billion members? That's ignorant. Why would you defend a religion that believes wives are to submit or be beaten? Christianity doesn't. You've never studied the Quran or the bible. I have. You're the ignorant one here.

Both. Each of these religions has its problems. I don't defend these aspects of Islam, and the same goes for the same aspects of Christianity and other religions. You seem to be defending the more perverted aspects of Christianity and the shit-for-brains posse I mentioned. All three have a disgusting and sexually degrading record in regard to the female half of humanity, particularly with domestic abuse and violence. Patriarchal religions, which basically elevate the worship of the penis, do this. It is a fundamental flaw in their structures.

Do some research. I wish I had saved it. I found a wonderful article about how "Christian" husbands can extort sex from an unwilling wife. Look at this subservience to the male of the couple, which basically means lay down and spread 'em when he snaps his fingers. In the sicko cult of the Duggars, a woman's husband has to give her permission to wear pants.

You are the one who is lazy and ignorant. You sound like a member of one of these phony "Christian" cults.

 

[irosie91]

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

so? what has that got to do with insurance claims. I would say that if a Christian dies with a rifle in his hands whilst shooting up an abortion clinic-----no one should collect on his life insurance
Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact.

Because I do not know enough about it, including the context in which it arose, I don't want to research it right now, and I would never trust your description of it. Right-wingers are known to strip something of all context and content, which is grossly dishonest.

How are you against an entire 1.5 billion religion? That's pretty ignorant. Are you going to blame every Christian in the world for the actions of some folks like graham or jeffress or some of these monkey pastors babbling about anti-gays and encouraging violence against them or eric rudolph or robert dear? Every religion has its garbage.

What's ignorant is to defend something you know nothing about. I've studied Islam and Christianity. I know and understand both of the religions. You defend a religion simply because there are 1.5 billion members? That's ignorant. Why would you defend a religion that believes wives are to submit or be beaten? Christianity doesn't. You've never studied the Quran or the bible. I have. You're the ignorant one here.

Both. Each of these religions has its problems. I don't defend these aspects of Islam, and the same goes for the same aspects of Christianity and other religions. You seem to be defending the more perverted aspects of Christianity and the shit-for-brains posse I mentioned. All three have a disgusting and sexually degrading record in regard to the female half of humanity, particularly with domestic abuse and violence. Patriarchal religions, which basically elevate the worship of the penis, do this. It is a fundamental flaw in their structures.

Do some research. I wish I had saved it. I found a wonderful article about how "Christian" husbands can extort sex from an unwilling wife. Look at this subservience to the male of the couple, which basically means lay down and spread 'em when he snaps his fingers. In the sicko cult of the Duggars, a woman's husband has to give her permission to wear pants.

You are the one who is lazy and ignorant. You sound like a member of one of these phony "Christian" cults.

 

[BS Filter]

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

Yes, I am against the muslim religion. I can understand why you wouldn't want to comment on that fact.

Because I do not know enough about it, including the context in which it arose, I don't want to research it right now, and I would never trust your description of it. Right-wingers are known to strip something of all context and content, which is grossly dishonest.

How are you against an entire 1.5 billion religion? That's pretty ignorant. Are you going to blame every Christian in the world for the actions of some folks like graham or jeffress or some of these monkey pastors babbling about anti-gays and encouraging violence against them or eric rudolph or robert dear? Every religion has its garbage.

What's ignorant is to defend something you know nothing about. I've studied Islam and Christianity. I know and understand both of the religions. You defend a religion simply because there are 1.5 billion members? That's ignorant. Why would you defend a religion that believes wives are to submit or be beaten? Christianity doesn't. You've never studied the Quran or the bible. I have. You're the ignorant one here.

Both. Each of these religions has its problems. I don't defend these aspects of Islam, and the same goes for the same aspects of Christianity and other religions. You seem to be defending the more perverted aspects of Christianity and the shit-for-brains posse I mentioned. All three have a disgusting and sexually degrading record in regard to the female half of humanity, particularly with domestic abuse and violence. Patriarchal religions, which basically elevate the worship of the penis, do this. It is a fundamental flaw in their structures.

Do some research. I wish I had saved it. I found a wonderful article about how "Christian" husbands can extort sex from an unwilling wife. Look at this subservience to the male of the couple, which basically means lay down and spread 'em when he snaps his fingers. In the sicko cult of the Duggars, a woman's husband has to give her permission to wear pants.

You are the one who is lazy and ignorant. You sound like a member of one of these phony "Christian" cults.

I'm not talking about personal behavior. I'm talking the doctrines of each religion. When I read the New Testament, I see husbands love their wives and husbands lay their lives down for them. When I read the Quran, it teaches that husbands are permitted to beat their wives. Now , regarding personal behavior, that's a different case. My point is Christianity is far superior to Islam. Christianity is positive and full of life. Islam is full of hate and abuse, according to their holy books.

 

[SweetSue92]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

Don't know what you mean by the last sentence. People do not have to scrub themselves clean of religious faith in order to work gov't jobs. The religion of the US gov't is not secular. It is neutral--it simply does not take a stand, that's it. Gov't employees absolutely have a right to believe whatever they wish, just the same as every other American citizen. They do not have the right to proselytize at work. That's it.

 

[SweetSue92]

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

OH watch out, now. Lots and lots of things can be called "extremism".

 

[SweetSue92]

So Government employees lose their rights to free speech and religion?

I think I did a good job of delineating the boundaries. Their rights are not limitless. No one's are. If you can't do your job, you should not be in a position that serves the public. Remember that jerk in Kentucky who refused to issue a marriage license, but she was the official who had the job of issuing one? How about members of law enforcement caught in racist organizations? How can the public rely on these people when they are unreliable? When any job entails the exercise of discretion, extremism has a negative impact on the public.

Why should the taxpayers keep people on the payroll who won't do their jobs and cannot be trusted to operate in a neutral manner? They are just trying to stick it to the public. There are other jobs out there that could accommodate their particular beliefs. With rights also come responsibilities.

You say the same thing about Muslims who hate fags, and require beards, or Hadiffs, not to mention their 5 times a day breaks? How about a Muslim K-9 unit?

Same thing, kid. No matter what their religion, no one has the right to bring our public services to a standstill. If the duties of a job conflict with someone's beliefs, it is up to them to find another one. I've done a lot of discrimination law in my life, and I will tell you that there is a case in the courts now of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now refuses to serve alcoholic drinks on the plane. Her co-workers got tired of covering for her. She thinks that they should do so because she wants to keep flying. She is going to be the biggest loser. If she wants to keep flying, she will have to find an airline that does not serve alcohol on board.

There are a lot of Muslims in my neighborhood. The vast majority of the men do not wear beards. The bank teller, the Pakistani and Indian cab drivers don't wear beards, my Pakistani friend, a security guard, does not wear a beard. Neither does the Afghani guy who helps me at the supermarket. Beards are only required in certain radical sects.

BTW: your use of the term "fags" shows me what kind of person you are. Your references to Muslims do the same.

A muslim representative just voted AGAINST a bill that would deny insurance benefits to terrorists that are killed committing acts of terrorism. What's your take on that?

You are way off topics. You also are prejudiced against the Muslim religion.

You're prejudiced against the Christian religion and have made that manifestly clear.

 

[mgh80]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Many things are politically divisive, yet they are allowed. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't give you the right to censor me. Live and let live. Let's teach creationism along with evolution and let the kids make up their own mind.

Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, though. It is a belief of some religions and constructed by people who literally believe in Genesis and who are trying to beat a square peg into a round hole. The person or people who wrote Genesis could not possibly have been around for the creation of the earth.

My problem with the shirt remains.

Who says creationism isn't a valid scientific theory? Many scientists are Christians. Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. I can provide quotes where Einstein said that he believed there was an Intelligent Spirit to the universe that dwarfed man's intelligence. That's hogwash that creationism isn't a valid scientific theory. Check this out.
Einstein and Intelligent Design

Which creationism? Each religion has its own version....surely you are not saying that if you are going to pick a religious version of the Beginning, that only christianity counts? See the problem?

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

 

[BS Filter]

Many things are politically divisive, yet they are allowed. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't give you the right to censor me. Live and let live. Let's teach creationism along with evolution and let the kids make up their own mind.

Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, though. It is a belief of some religions and constructed by people who literally believe in Genesis and who are trying to beat a square peg into a round hole. The person or people who wrote Genesis could not possibly have been around for the creation of the earth.

My problem with the shirt remains.

Who says creationism isn't a valid scientific theory? Many scientists are Christians. Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. I can provide quotes where Einstein said that he believed there was an Intelligent Spirit to the universe that dwarfed man's intelligence. That's hogwash that creationism isn't a valid scientific theory. Check this out.
Einstein and Intelligent Design

Which creationism? Each religion has its own version....surely you are not saying that if you are going to pick a religious version of the Beginning, that only christianity counts? See the problem?

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

Bullshit. You're a Christian, and I'm Alexander the great.

 

[Lysistrata]

The school board member was correct in saying that the shirt is politically divisive. In fact, it comments on two divisive ideas on the shirt. Moreover, the inclusion of the wording "In Dodge County, we" implies that all residents of the county agree with the messages on the shirt: all residents disagree with the kneeling protest and all are Christians.

The shirt probably would have passed muster if school officials had not been involved, and the shirt just said "I stand for the Flag and kneel for the Cross."

Any private citizen can wear any shirt that makes any claim like that, actually. If my church wanted to prints shirts with the message, "In America, we stand for the flag and kneel for the Cross" we sure could. So could my family, my business or my neighborhood.

The only way you can't do that is on gov't dime and with gov't resources and in your capacity as a gov't official. So again, that's a grey area--leaning toward probably not on the up-and-up in this case. But absolutely, not EVERY citizen in Dodge Co has to agree with the statement for any citizen to wear a shirt with that statement on it. (shrug)

You can print anything you want on your shirt as long as no governmental entity is involved. I'm pointing out the insulting manner in which some people now try to appear as if they speak for all. It's a ridiculous claim intended for purposes of provocation only. This "me, me, me" stuff is ruining our society.

Meh, it's a shirt. I read stuff on shirts that I could find offensive or insulting all the time. So what. Again the only problem is if it's got gov't hands on it.

Well, on that much we agree. Lots of shirts and signs are offensive. There must be no involvement of a government employee in it while on the clock or using government property.

Unfortunately, there has been a large problem lately of such people trying to use their official authority and public property to further their religious and ideological ambitions and/or to promote their individual beliefs. A problem also has arisen of people whose outside activities bring into doubt their ability to serve the public effectively or tend to compromise the reputations and missions of their organizations.

Don't know what you mean by the last sentence. People do not have to scrub themselves clean of religious faith in order to work gov't jobs. The religion of the US gov't is not secular. It is neutral--it simply does not take a stand, that's it. Gov't employees absolutely have a right to believe whatever they wish, just the same as every other American citizen. They do not have the right to proselytize at work. That's it.

They also do not have the right to use the powers of the offices they hold to impose their religious beliefs on the public.

 

[Lysistrata]

Many things are politically divisive, yet they are allowed. Just because you disagree with me, doesn't give you the right to censor me. Live and let live. Let's teach creationism along with evolution and let the kids make up their own mind.

Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, though. It is a belief of some religions and constructed by people who literally believe in Genesis and who are trying to beat a square peg into a round hole. The person or people who wrote Genesis could not possibly have been around for the creation of the earth.

My problem with the shirt remains.

Who says creationism isn't a valid scientific theory? Many scientists are Christians. Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. I can provide quotes where Einstein said that he believed there was an Intelligent Spirit to the universe that dwarfed man's intelligence. That's hogwash that creationism isn't a valid scientific theory. Check this out.
Einstein and Intelligent Design

Which creationism? Each religion has its own version....surely you are not saying that if you are going to pick a religious version of the Beginning, that only christianity counts? See the problem?

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

This is fine, if it works all ways. I am thinking of that award-winning teacher in Texas who was suspended merely for exhibiting a photo of the woman with whom she was engaged to be married in a "know your teacher" presentation just because some parent complained that she was promoting something called "the gay agenda," whatever that means (and we don't, since this is a term that originates from some religious cults). All she did was show a photo of her intended on a vacation they took to Italy.

 

[BS Filter]

Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, though. It is a belief of some religions and constructed by people who literally believe in Genesis and who are trying to beat a square peg into a round hole. The person or people who wrote Genesis could not possibly have been around for the creation of the earth.

My problem with the shirt remains.

Who says creationism isn't a valid scientific theory? Many scientists are Christians. Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. I can provide quotes where Einstein said that he believed there was an Intelligent Spirit to the universe that dwarfed man's intelligence. That's hogwash that creationism isn't a valid scientific theory. Check this out.
Einstein and Intelligent Design

Which creationism? Each religion has its own version....surely you are not saying that if you are going to pick a religious version of the Beginning, that only christianity counts? See the problem?

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

This is fine, if it works all ways. I am thinking of that award-winning teacher in Texas who was suspended merely for exhibiting a photo of the woman with whom she was engaged to be married in a "know your teacher" presentation just because some parent complained that she was promoting something called "the gay agenda," whatever that means (and we don't, since this is a term that originates from some religious cults). All she did was show a photo of her intended on a vacation they took to Italy.

Promotion of the gay agenda means indoctrination of children that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. That's what people mean when they say "the gay agenda".

 

[mgh80]

Who says creationism isn't a valid scientific theory? Many scientists are Christians. Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent Design. I can provide quotes where Einstein said that he believed there was an Intelligent Spirit to the universe that dwarfed man's intelligence. That's hogwash that creationism isn't a valid scientific theory. Check this out.
Einstein and Intelligent Design

Which creationism? Each religion has its own version....surely you are not saying that if you are going to pick a religious version of the Beginning, that only christianity counts? See the problem?

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

This is fine, if it works all ways. I am thinking of that award-winning teacher in Texas who was suspended merely for exhibiting a photo of the woman with whom she was engaged to be married in a "know your teacher" presentation just because some parent complained that she was promoting something called "the gay agenda," whatever that means (and we don't, since this is a term that originates from some religious cults). All she did was show a photo of her intended on a vacation they took to Italy.

Promotion of the gay agenda means indoctrination of children that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. That's what people mean when they say "the gay agenda".

I don't mention heterosexuality (other than presented in the texts we read), or homosexuality. Telling students that homosexuality isn't normal (regardless if I believe that or not) is just as indoctrinating as tell them that it is normal. It works both ways.

PS: I most certainly am a Christian, and you sound very judgmental in your post about me...I can show you where in the Bible that that sort of attitude is very Christian of you.

 

[BS Filter]

Which creationism? Each religion has its own version....surely you are not saying that if you are going to pick a religious version of the Beginning, that only christianity counts? See the problem?

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

This is fine, if it works all ways. I am thinking of that award-winning teacher in Texas who was suspended merely for exhibiting a photo of the woman with whom she was engaged to be married in a "know your teacher" presentation just because some parent complained that she was promoting something called "the gay agenda," whatever that means (and we don't, since this is a term that originates from some religious cults). All she did was show a photo of her intended on a vacation they took to Italy.

Promotion of the gay agenda means indoctrination of children that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. That's what people mean when they say "the gay agenda".

I don't mention heterosexuality (other than presented in the texts we read), or homosexuality. Telling students that homosexuality isn't normal (regardless if I believe that or not) is just as indoctrinating as tell them that it is normal. It works both ways.

PS: I most certainly am a Christian, and you sound very judgmental in your post about me...I can show you where in the Bible that that sort of attitude is very Christian of you.

And I can show you in the New Testament where God's Word condemns homosexuality and Jesus says marriage is a male and female. Judge according to the Word.

 

[LittleNipper]

Here is my opinion for what it is worth! School is for learning and not demonstrating one's individuality. When attended school in the 50's and 60's, message shirts of any kind were unacceptable. Parochial schools demanded uniforms. Girls were to wear skirts and boys pants. No shorts, sandals, muscle or T- shirts were allowed in class.

 

[mgh80]

No, I don't see any problem. Creator is all that needs to be mentioned. If someone doesn't like it, then take your kid to a private school. We should teach both sides. Creationism is also as scientific as evolution. They're both "Theories".

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

This is fine, if it works all ways. I am thinking of that award-winning teacher in Texas who was suspended merely for exhibiting a photo of the woman with whom she was engaged to be married in a "know your teacher" presentation just because some parent complained that she was promoting something called "the gay agenda," whatever that means (and we don't, since this is a term that originates from some religious cults). All she did was show a photo of her intended on a vacation they took to Italy.

Promotion of the gay agenda means indoctrination of children that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. That's what people mean when they say "the gay agenda".

I don't mention heterosexuality (other than presented in the texts we read), or homosexuality. Telling students that homosexuality isn't normal (regardless if I believe that or not) is just as indoctrinating as tell them that it is normal. It works both ways.

PS: I most certainly am a Christian, and you sound very judgmental in your post about me...I can show you where in the Bible that that sort of attitude is very Christian of you.

And I can show you in the New Testament where God's Word condemns homosexuality and Jesus says marriage is a male and female. Judge according to the Word.

What's your point? You still judged and we all know what the Bible says about that. Luckily for all of us only God gets to judge me.

 

[BS Filter]

As a Christian teacher at a public school I disagree. A school's job is NOT to indoctrinate the kids and this goes BOTH ways. We can't pick and choose when we want do it and when we don't as it suits us individually. My religious beliefs should have no bearing on my student's lives/work/etc. just like my political views shouldn't. When students ask me what religion I am-I tell them what I am, and leave it at that. It's inappropriate for me to tell them what to believe. When they ask me who I vote for, I jokingly tell them that I write myself in on the ballot and they're smart enough to understand I wont tell them.

I believe that there's a God who created what all that we experience, but I don't know for a fact. That's why it's called "faith" and not "knowledge".

This is fine, if it works all ways. I am thinking of that award-winning teacher in Texas who was suspended merely for exhibiting a photo of the woman with whom she was engaged to be married in a "know your teacher" presentation just because some parent complained that she was promoting something called "the gay agenda," whatever that means (and we don't, since this is a term that originates from some religious cults). All she did was show a photo of her intended on a vacation they took to Italy.

Promotion of the gay agenda means indoctrination of children that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. That's what people mean when they say "the gay agenda".

I don't mention heterosexuality (other than presented in the texts we read), or homosexuality. Telling students that homosexuality isn't normal (regardless if I believe that or not) is just as indoctrinating as tell them that it is normal. It works both ways.

PS: I most certainly am a Christian, and you sound very judgmental in your post about me...I can show you where in the Bible that that sort of attitude is very Christian of you.

And I can show you in the New Testament where God's Word condemns homosexuality and Jesus says marriage is a male and female. Judge according to the Word.

What's your point? You still judged and we all know what the Bible says about that. Luckily for all of us only God gets to judge me.

The Bible says to judge all things. You're ignorant of the Bible. You're taking one verse out of context and using it to justify your sin. Homosexuality is sin, period.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Her diatribe is classic leftist propaganda. This is another example of why education needs to be removed from federal government and union control.
Todd Starnes: T-shirts saying 'stand for the flag, kneel for the cross' draw protest at school

This is a growing threat that needs to be wiped out.