8 year old girl unwelcome at Christian school for being a tomboy (1 Viewer)

[matuski]

Religion

Ah yes, forget the food drives, the homeless shelters, orphanages, the universities and hospitals that religion has given us... that's just cover for kicking little girls out of private schools

You can do all those things without religion as an excuse.

It would be a lot harder to make excuses for behavior like that in the OP without religion as a shield.

Not really. Excuses are easy. She was different and was upsetting the school environment so they kicked her out. Pretty simple.A lot of educators are lazy and don't like dealing with complexities. It's not a problem unique to religious schools.

You are 100% correct on the underlying human weakness that is the root cause. You completely whiffed on religion's role as a tool in this game.

Religion attempts to place a barrier before those excuses to prevent reasonable inspection and logical challenges. If you just say she was upsetting the school, I can ask you to show me and you are right or you are wrong - either way we can examine it. If you say the Bible (a god) says so, you just derailed the entire issue with cockamamie garbage in an effort to NOT be subjected to reasonable inspection and logical challenges.

It don't see how the argument is any different with no tolerance policies. The goal is to create an easy scapegoat for being a lazy educator. No flexibility means no room for reasonable compromise, introspection, or discourse.

People have a hard time separating the two it seems.

There is what the school is claiming and doing (the policy). Then there is what the school is saying and doing to justify the policy.

Their policy can't stand on its own merit so they bring religion into to it so they don't have to argue its merit. "My God says so, sorry."

Their policy is bad enough, hiding behind the Bible to justify it is doubling down.

 

[Rove!]

It's a private school. So far as I know, they take no money from the state. Unlike, for instance, a retail bakery, they're not serving the general public.

Given these circumstances, why can't they expel anyone they choose for whatever reason they choose, or for no reason at all?

They should be free to expel this kid if they want. And we're free to criticize them for it. Which is, of course, what we're doing. (They're idiots).

I may be a little late to the party, but . . . I kind of get where they are coming from, if the issue is one of how to deal with differing visions of teaching and accepting "gender identity."

Reading the letter, it seems that there is more going on than just "tomboy." From the content of the letter, it sounds like the child (and parents) are stuggling with the child's gender identity, and how to address it. If the school teaches one way ("the gender you identify with should match your physical genetalia"), and the guardians of the child teach another way ("the person should get to choose the gender that he or she would like to identify as"), then it could, indeed, set the child and family up for confusion.

I may be a sucker, but the letter actually comes off as kind of compassionate.

I'm offended by the notion of associating dress and actions with specific genders. One could identify as a girl and still enjoy sports, playing in the mud, wearing sneakers and short hair...

The whole notion of bringing gender identity into it is two sides of a bigoted coin that belongs a couple of generations in the past.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

-Steven Weinberg

Steven Weinberg never heard Of the Sovit Union? North Korea? Maoist China.

Interesting that you consider Stalin, Kim Jong X, and Mao good people.

Interesting you think Stalin, Kim, and Mao did everything personally . Or do you think there were no good people in any communist party.

 

[timschochet]

IMO, very little difference between the Communist Parties of Russia and China and organized religion, at least whenever the latter has been in control of a political situation. The dynamics are basically the same.

ETA So Weinberg is right, and so is Hot Diggity Dog. Russia and China were actually examples of a religion- that religion being Communism- which made good people act in an evil way.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

 

[timschochet]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

 

[jonessed]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

 

[Pots]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Wow! This post...

 

[jon_mx]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Tim taking stupid to a new level. Congrats.

 

[Apple Jack]

Jesus would totally be rejected by one of these schools.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IMO, very little difference between the Communist Parties of Russia and China and organized religion, at least whenever the latter has been in control of a political situation. The dynamics are basically the same.

ETA So Weinberg is right, and so is Hot Diggity Dog. Russia and China were actually examples of a religion- that religion being Communism- which made good people act in an evil way.

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman argument. You're starting with the assumption that only religion causes people to do bad things. Then when somebody brings up something that's not a religion but that led to bad things, you re-define the term "religion" encompass stuff like communism.

Edit: Woah, I should have read a couple posts further before responding. tim must have been drunk last night or something.

 

[timschochet]

Curious about which aspect of my post bothers you guys the most- that atheism is a result of the Enlightenment? That's a historical fact. That the Enlightenment was the key to the industrial revolution and all of our technological progress over the past 300 years? That's another fact. That we could have had the Enlightenment thousands of years before we did, but religion (in the west, Christianity) held us down and worked against the advancement of civilization? That's my opinion, but it's one that has been offered by many brilliant people, and I can't take credit for it.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Are the only atheists you know college professors?

 

[timschochet]

IMO, very little difference between the Communist Parties of Russia and China and organized religion, at least whenever the latter has been in control of a political situation. The dynamics are basically the same.

ETA So Weinberg is right, and so is Hot Diggity Dog. Russia and China were actually examples of a religion- that religion being Communism- which made good people act in an evil way.

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman argument. You're starting with the assumption that only religion causes people to do bad things. Then when somebody brings up something that's not a religion but that led to bad things, you re-define the term "religion" encompass stuff like communism.

.

I don't believe that only religion can make people do bad things. I didn't make that argument; someone else did. IMO, it's a very shallow argument. That's not what I meant when I wrote that Weinberg is right. But i wanted to point out when Stalin and Mao were brought up (as they inevitably always are in these discussions) that there's little difference between their brands of communism and organized religion.

 

[timschochet]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Are the only atheists you know college professors?

No. But the first modern atheists were Hobbs, Hume, and (arguably) Spinoza.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

IMO, very little difference between the Communist Parties of Russia and China and organized religion, at least whenever the latter has been in control of a political situation. The dynamics are basically the same.

ETA So Weinberg is right, and so is Hot Diggity Dog. Russia and China were actually examples of a religion- that religion being Communism- which made good people act in an evil way.

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman argument. You're starting with the assumption that only religion causes people to do bad things. Then when somebody brings up something that's not a religion but that led to bad things, you re-define the term "religion" encompass stuff like communism.

.

I don't believe that only religion can make people do bad things. I didn't make that argument; someone else did. IMO, it's a very shallow argument. That's not what I meant when I wrote that Weinberg is right. But i wanted to point out when Stalin and Mao were brought up (as they inevitably always are in these discussions) that there's little difference between their brands of communism and organized religion.

Aside from the fact that one is a political ideology that explicitly renounces religion and the other is a religion?

 

[Hang 10]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Just shut up.

 

[timschochet]

IMO, very little difference between the Communist Parties of Russia and China and organized religion, at least whenever the latter has been in control of a political situation. The dynamics are basically the same.

ETA So Weinberg is right, and so is Hot Diggity Dog. Russia and China were actually examples of a religion- that religion being Communism- which made good people act in an evil way.

This is a variation of the No True Scotsman argument. You're starting with the assumption that only religion causes people to do bad things. Then when somebody brings up something that's not a religion but that led to bad things, you re-define the term "religion" encompass stuff like communism.

.

I don't believe that only religion can make people do bad things. I didn't make that argument; someone else did. IMO, it's a very shallow argument. That's not what I meant when I wrote that Weinberg is right. But i wanted to point out when Stalin and Mao were brought up (as they inevitably always are in these discussions) that there's little difference between their brands of communism and organized religion.

Aside from the fact that one is a political ideology that explicitly renounces religion and the other is a religion?

Yes. The dynamics are roughly the same. They substituted Marx/Lenin for God, and Marx's writings for Scripture. They had acolytes, rituals, reverence for a Leader in the place of God. Very similar. The free thinking, inquisitive nature that we associate with secularism in western societies was absent.

 

[timschochet]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Just shut up.

Well that's a thoughtful retort to a rather popular theory. Actually it's not uncommon for some religious conservatives to react this way whenever they ate confronted with the unpleasant fact that for centuries Christianity acted as a brake on human progress, and it was only when western civilization decided to become secular that we advanced.

 

[shader]

Curious about which aspect of my post bothers you guys the most- that atheism is a result of the Enlightenment? That's a historical fact. That the Enlightenment was the key to the industrial revolution and all of our technological progress over the past 300 years? That's another fact. That we could have had the Enlightenment thousands of years before we did, but religion (in the west, Christianity) held us down and worked against the advancement of civilization? That's my opinion, but it's one that has been offered by many brilliant people, and I can't take credit for it.

This post is QUITE condescending. Atheists were around before the enlightment and I'd argue probably in similar numbers as to today. The difference is they would have been killed if they were vocal 500 years ago and now they can speak freely. .

But the key to your condescension is how you slyly lump atheism in with the industrial revolution and all of our technological progress over the past 300 years.

Atheism and belief in God had nothing to do with the industrial revolution and technological progress. All of that came from the use of fossil fuels.

Atheists make up 2 percent of the population. Even if you are right and the Enlightment led to atheism, it didn't make much of a dent. A very vocal 2 percent, but still a small portion of the population.

Atheists were certainly not a cause of the modern industrial age. I think your arrogance in this matter is astounding.

 

[jonessed]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Tim taking stupid to a new level. Congrats.

If all those crappy civilizations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Persians, etc. hadn't mired us in backasswards technology and thought we could be flying spaceships right now and communicating via mental telepathy.

 

[shader]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Just shut up.

Well that's a thoughtful retort to a rather popular theory. Actually it's not uncommon for some religious conservatives to react this way whenever they ate confronted with the unpleasant fact that for centuries Christianity acted as a brake on human progress, and it was only when western civilization decided to become secular that we advanced.

 

[timschochet]

You managed to call me condescending twice and arrogant once all in the same post. I never wrote that atheism was responsible for the industrial revolution- I wrote that the Enlightenment was responsible, and that it's the Enlightenment, which was a largely secular movement, which also produced modern day atheism. All of that is fact. I don't see how facts can be arrogant.

 

[timschochet]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Tim taking stupid to a new level. Congrats.

If all those crappy civilizations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Persians, etc. hadn't mired us in backasswards technology and thought we could be flying spaceships right now and communicating via mental telepathy.

Those civilizations all moved us forward to a certain extent. Then we had monotheism in the form of Christianity and things moved to a standstill, which is known in history as the Dark Ages.

 

[timschochet]

For anyone who is seriously interested on learning how Christianity stifled human advancement, I recommend the works of Will Durant. If you don't want to go into that much detail, and just want brief summaries by modern day respected thinkers, try Sam Harris.

 

[shader]

For anyone who is seriously interested on learning how Christianity stifled human advancement, I recommend the works of Will Durant. If you don't want to go into that much detail, and just want brief summaries by modern day respected thinkers, try Sam Harris.

I don't disagree with the facts that the Church stifled human advancement. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that either. But that Church was not a "christian" church. We are talking about an institution that killed people for owning bibles.

The point being, it wasn't christianity itself, but a huge corrupt institution that had grown into the dominant world power that stifled advancement.

And the advancements made after the Enlightenment weren't due to atheism, but were due to the shackles of the corrupt organization losing power over the people.

 

[pollardsvision]

Good thing the church is no longer used to empower leaders in a corrupt institution.

We've come a long way

 

[timschochet]

For anyone who is seriously interested on learning how Christianity stifled human advancement, I recommend the works of Will Durant. If you don't want to go into that much detail, and just want brief summaries by modern day respected thinkers, try Sam Harris.

I don't disagree with the facts that the Church stifled human advancement. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that either. But that Church was not a "christian" church. We are talking about an institution that killed people for owning bibles.

The point being, it wasn't christianity itself, but a huge corrupt institution that had grown into the dominant world power that stifled advancement.

And the advancements made after the Enlightenment weren't due to atheism, but were due to the shackles of the corrupt organization losing power over the people.

To your last point, once again I never wrote that atheism was responsible for human advancement, so you needn't keep arguing with me on that point. As to your main argument, you sound a lot like the Marxists I encountered in college who were always arguing that Stalinism was a corruption of "true Communism". In both cases I disagree. I think that the Dark Ages and all of the religious persecution caused by Christian run governments was an inevitable result of the religion itself.

 

[Scoresman]

Good thing the church is no longer used to empower leaders in a corrupt institution.

We've come a long way

I agree, but its not like they aren't still trying to stick their scripture into government policy, RE: abortion and gay marriage legislation and stem cell opposition to keep us from advancing in those fields.

 

[shader]

For anyone who is seriously interested on learning how Christianity stifled human advancement, I recommend the works of Will Durant. If you don't want to go into that much detail, and just want brief summaries by modern day respected thinkers, try Sam Harris.

I don't disagree with the facts that the Church stifled human advancement. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that either. But that Church was not a "christian" church. We are talking about an institution that killed people for owning bibles.

The point being, it wasn't christianity itself, but a huge corrupt institution that had grown into the dominant world power that stifled advancement.

And the advancements made after the Enlightenment weren't due to atheism, but were due to the shackles of the corrupt organization losing power over the people.

To your last point, once again I never wrote that atheism was responsible for human advancement, so you needn't keep arguing with me on that point.As to your main argument, you sound a lot like the Marxists I encountered in college who were always arguing that Stalinism was a corruption of "true Communism". In both cases I disagree. I think that the Dark Ages and all of the religious persecution caused by Christian run governments was an inevitable result of the religion itself.

Killing people for owning bibles, persecution for questioning scientific ideas, the Crusades, etc...You think these were an inevitable result of the teachings of Jesus? In what way?

Tim, I realize you didn't say atheism was directly responsible, but you lumped it all in together, as if the release of the shackles of the church finally allowed "advanced" things like atheism to come about. Then in a subsequent post you said that if atheists had been around thousands of years ago, the Industrial Revolution would have taken place thousands of years earlier. So while you didn't directly name atheism the cause and technology the effect...your beliefs on the matter are quite obvious.

 

[Rove!]

"green theology" is the modern day impediment to progress..

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Are the only atheists you know college professors?

No. But the first modern atheists were Hobbs, Hume, and (arguably) Spinoza.

I understand your point but modern atheists also include Hegel, Neichtze, and yes Marx and Engalls.

 

[Sweet J]

It's a private school. So far as I know, they take no money from the state. Unlike, for instance, a retail bakery, they're not serving the general public.

Given these circumstances, why can't they expel anyone they choose for whatever reason they choose, or for no reason at all?

They should be free to expel this kid if they want. And we're free to criticize them for it. Which is, of course, what we're doing. (They're idiots).

I may be a little late to the party, but . . . I kind of get where they are coming from, if the issue is one of how to deal with differing visions of teaching and accepting "gender identity."

Reading the letter, it seems that there is more going on than just "tomboy." From the content of the letter, it sounds like the child (and parents) are stuggling with the child's gender identity, and how to address it. If the school teaches one way ("the gender you identify with should match your physical genetalia"), and the guardians of the child teach another way ("the person should get to choose the gender that he or she would like to identify as"), then it could, indeed, set the child and family up for confusion.

I may be a sucker, but the letter actually comes off as kind of compassionate.

I'm offended by the notion of associating dress and actions with specific genders. One could identify as a girl and still enjoy sports, playing in the mud, wearing sneakers and short hair...

The whole notion of bringing gender identity into it is two sides of a bigoted coin that belongs a couple of generations in the past.

I agree with your first line. I don't understand your second.

Look, I'll readily admit to making an assumption here: That is that this is more than this child just being a "tomboy" and enjoying "sports, playing in the mud, wearing sneakers and short hair." If that is the full extent of the behavior that is being frowned upon, than I would be another voice adding to the condemnation of the school.

My assumption, though, is that there is something more going on based on the precise wording of the letter. It seems as though the school believes that Sunny is struggling with gender identity. I'd bet that there is a lot more going on than just "tomboy-ness."

Regardless, this presents a much more interesting question than the one that appears to be debated here. Of course kids who behave outside of the traditional gender norms should not be treated this way. But what about if the issue is bigger than that? What if the child has some confusion about his/her gender identity. Or even a lack of confusion. What if a child is physically a female but wants to present him/herself as male? What is a traditional Christian school to do with that? I think that is a fantastic question.

I will say that somebody is not being upfront here. The school is alluding very strongly (see the follow up article) that there is more at play here than just a case of a tomboy. But they won't say because of privacy issues.

 

[Sweet J]

By the way -- I think there is room for really good debate here. But this thread has gone down a rabbit hole of "Hobbs, Hume, and (arguably) Spinoza." Really??? Jesus H. Christ, man.

 

[timschochet]

By the way -- I think there is room for really good debate here. But this thread has gone down a rabbit hole of "Hobbs, Hume, and (arguably) Spinoza." Really??? Jesus H. Christ, man.

I was responding to a side argument which I did not begin. But I'll stop now.

 

[jonessed]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed.

Tim taking stupid to a new level. Congrats.

If all those crappy civilizations like the Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans, Persians, etc. hadn't mired us in backasswards technology and thought we could be flying spaceships right now and communicating via mental telepathy.

Those civilizations all moved us forward to a certain extent. Then we had monotheism in the form of Christianity and things moved to a standstill, which is known in history as the Dark Ages.

The Dark Ages refers specifically to Western Europe. You are being myopic again.

 

[Koya]

Who would Jesus expel?

The modern Jesus? Only his entire flock. But those filled with hate and smallmindedness, or at the least a lack of compassion would quickly refill those spots.

 

[Dr Oadi]

And what does atheism have in it's philosophy that will prevent or convince people to not commit evil acts? No God, no afterlife, almost literally from nothing to nothing, may inspire some into higher consciousness but lots of others are going to interrupt that as license to fulfill baser desires.

So you're good out of fear or because something told you to be good.I'm good because I want to be.

I win.

Not about whether you win or I'm good. Point is your blaming religion for causing people to do evil when it is the nature of Humans to do evil and twist any philosophy to their ends. If people had been atheists since the beginning of time I don't believe our history would be any less blood soaked.

Oh I certainly disagree with this. Atheism is a direct result of the Enlightenment, in which mankind relied on reason as its standard for the first time in our history (with very few exceprions such as Ancient Greece.) if we had atheists from the beginning, that means we would also have had the Enlightenment from the beginning, and the modern industrial age would have begun thousands of years ago. As a society we would be much farther advanced. Suppose we had first developed nuclear weapons 2,000 years ago? There would be far less wars and far less bloodshed today because mankind would have wiped itself off the Earth 1,000 years ago. .

fixed

 

[fatness]

She's only eight for Pete's sake...

More about her.

Sunnie, eager to break away from an interview and ride her bike, said she liked Timberlake better than the public school she is now attending.

"I had a lot of friends there," she said of the school she attended since age 3.

Doris Thompson said Sunnie would grow her hair so she could return to Timberlake, but her husband said that's "out of the question."

Sunnie's troubles at Timberlake began in pre-kindergarten after she cut her hair to donate it to a program that provides wigs for cancer patients, Doris Thompson said. Around then, she started wanting boys' clothes.

"A teacher told me I was the parent and I needed to control her, and if she didn't obey I needed to take her in the bathroom and whip her butt," Thompson said.

Rather than just dismiss the teacher's concerns, she asked the family doctor for advice. "He said, 'Leave that child alone!'" she said.

Afterward, Thompson said the teacher told her: "You need to find a Christian doctor."

 

[fatness]

Teachers at Timberlake Christian Schools started asking Doris Thompson whether her granddaughter was a lesbian shortly after the little girl chopped off her waist-length hair to donate it to cancer patients, Thompson said. Sunnie Kahle was only 3 at the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/christian-school-bans-tomboy-girl-direction-shes-heading/story?id=23084863

 

[MaxThreshold]

Teachers at Timberlake Christian Schools started asking Doris Thompson whether her granddaughter was a lesbian shortly after the little girl chopped off her waist-length hair to donate it to cancer patients, Thompson said. Sunnie Kahle was only 3 at the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/christian-school-bans-tomboy-girl-direction-shes-heading/story?id=23084863

Oh, c'mon. What's next? She was helping out in a soup kitchen when she donated her hair for cancer patients? Someone's laying it on thick now.

 

[Rove!]

Teachers at Timberlake Christian Schools started asking Doris Thompson whether her granddaughter was a lesbian shortly after the little girl chopped off her waist-length hair to donate it to cancer patients, Thompson said. Sunnie Kahle was only 3 at the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/christian-school-bans-tomboy-girl-direction-shes-heading/story?id=23084863

Oh, c'mon. What's next? She was helping out in a soup kitchen when she donated her hair for cancer patients? Someone's laying it on thick now.

Are you calling her a liar?

When will you bullies stop?

 

[Dr Oadi]

Teachers at Timberlake Christian Schools started asking Doris Thompson whether her granddaughter was a lesbian shortly after the little girl chopped off her waist-length hair to donate it to cancer patients, Thompson said. Sunnie Kahle was only 3 at the time.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/christian-school-bans-tomboy-girl-direction-shes-heading/story?id=23084863

But if Sunnie decides she’s attracted to women when she’s a teenager, Thompson said, “I’ll love her more.”

Hmmmmmmm