Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 18 Sep '10 19:50 / 1 edit
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=204805

    A New Mexico school principal what has demanded that a team of students cease their Christian acts has suspended three after they gave fresh Krispy Kreme doughnuts with Bible verses to their teachers, according to a complaint from a legal team. According to Liberty Counsel, the action came from Principal Ruben Bolanos, who also reported to have said he wanted the students to cease their Christian acts. "I don't like Christians. All they do is smile at you and then stab you in the back," the legal teams announcement reported the principal said.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I only have two questions. Who should undergo corrective action? Is it the students or the school? In addition, did anyone know that TOO was a principal?
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    18 Sep '10 19:54
    "I don't like Christians. All they do is smile at you and then stab you in the back,"

    I share that prejudice as many of you know.

    However I do know there is great goodness in Christianity as well.
  3. 18 Sep '10 19:55
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "I don't like Christians. All they do is smile at you and then stab you in the back,"

    I share that prejudice as many of you know.

    However I do know there is great goodness in Christianity as well.



    Edit: Is his back turned yet?
  4. 19 Sep '10 12:52 / 2 edits
    A while back as I recall FMF posted a thread about a homosexual student wanting to take a date to the prom but was denied because the school would not allow it. The school was then later sued and the student won. How is this Christian student any different? Both desire to "express" themselves so why is it OK for one to do so but not the other? Is it because a student dare utter the name "God" on the sacred secular humanistic state owned property?
  5. 19 Sep '10 12:56
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "I don't like Christians. All they do is smile at you and then stab you in the back,"

    I share that prejudice as many of you know.

    However I do know there is great goodness in Christianity as well.
    So you admit to being a Christian bigot. I have to say, at least you are honest. Most pretend they have no such bigotry. At least your bigotry is politically correct. Congrats!!
  6. 19 Sep '10 13:02
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    "I don't like Christians. All they do is smile at you and then stab you in the back,"

    I share that prejudice as many of you know.

    However I do know there is great goodness in Christianity as well.
    You have posted some pretty retarded statements in the past, but as far as shear ignorance this on put you in a different league. Kumbayah to you.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Sep '10 13:05 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    A while back as I recall FMF posted a thread about a homosexual student wanting to take a date to the prom but was denied because the school would not allow it. The school was then later sued and the student won. How is this Christian student any different? Both desire to "express" themselves so why is it OK for one to do so but not the other?
    Well I can never truly understand Americans' enormous enthusiasm for trying to restrict and condemn each others freedoms and beliefs - it's much more prevelant and vicious than in any of the societies around the world where I have lived.

    As for this case, all I can suggest - in terms of there being a difference between the two cases - is that the apparent proselytizing on the school campus during school hours are actions, and presumably they fall foul of school regulations - whereas the homosexual student wanting to take a date to the prom was denied permission because of who she was and because of proscription of her sexual orientation - which is, I'm sure we can all agree, a much more egregious attack on her rights as an individual in a free society.

    The Christians are perhaps seen as imposing on others (I don't see it that way myself though - leave them be is my instinctive response) whereas there was no suggestion that the homosexual student wanted to impose homosexuality on heterosexual students or harassing them by seeking to turn them into something they may not be interested in becoming. The Christians are clearly proactively trying to affect others and the school presumably has regulations in place to head this off at the pass as it it could affect campus peace and stability.

    But, as I say, I wouldn't have taken the action that Mr Bolanos took.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Sep '10 13:07
    Originally posted by cheshirecatstevens
    You have posted some pretty retarded statements in the past, but as far as shear ignorance this on put you in a different league. Kumbayah to you.
    He doesn't like Christians although he knows many of them have good intentions? This the most retarded statement you think ATY has ever made? How so?
  9. 19 Sep '10 13:10
    To me this seems like too mild a case of harassment of teachers (and I'm sure most of them didn't really care anyway) to warrant any sanction, but apparently the principal disagreed.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Sep '10 13:14
    Does anybody feel that using the term "Nazi" in the context of school campus tiff involving assertive Christians and an overzealous Headteacher is a bit of slightly insulting hyperbole?
  11. 19 Sep '10 13:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well I can never truly understand Americans' enormous enthusiasm for trying to restrict and condemn each others freedoms and beliefs - it's much more prevelant and vicious than in any of the societies around the world where I have lived.

    As for this case, all I can suggest - in terms of there being a difference between the two cases - is that the apparent pr ce and stability.

    But, as I say, I wouldn't have taken the action that Mr Bolanos toom.
    Proselytizing goes on in the homosexual world as well. In fact, anytime you stand up for a moral cause that you see as worthy to fight for is proselytizing.

    In short, why should children be denied the right to express who and what they are so long as it does not interfere with the class room? Granted, some kids may get annoyed but what kid has not been annoyed from a fellow class mate? Its called learning to get along.

    I should also point out that the students were giving the teacher a doughnut, not their class mates. Why then is this a problem?
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Sep '10 13:30 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Proselytizing goes on in the homosexual world as well. In fact, anytime you stand up for a moral cause that you see as worthy to fight for is proselytizing.
    So is that why you think the homosexual student was banned from the prom? Because she was trying to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality? I don't remember that being the case.

    I think you might need to look up the word "proselytise" in the dictionary, whodey.
  13. 19 Sep '10 13:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    So is that why you think the homosexual student was banned from the prom? Because she was trying to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality? I don't remember that being the case.
    She was expressing who he or she was to the world and those who might disagree or be offended be damned.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    19 Sep '10 13:42 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    She was expressing who he or she was to the world and those who might disagree or be offended be damned.
    She was just being who she is, whodey. What status do you afford the "disagreement" with "who she is" on the part of others in terms of deciding the degree to which her right to be who she is ought to be restricted?
  15. 19 Sep '10 13:43
    Originally posted by FMF
    She was just [b]being who she is, whodey. What status do you afford the "disagreement" with "who she is" on the part of others in terms of deciding the degree to which her right to be who she is ought to be restricted?[/b]
    Did I say she should be resticted? No. All I'm saying is end the hypocrisy and allow those of faith the same courtesy.