Are Christian Schools Being Outlawed?

[micatala]

In another thread, the following statement was made.

Ask that to the schools that will be denied accreditation for believing homosexuality is not natural or acceptable. That is to say, the outlawing of Christian education.

The only support that I found offered there was the following:

Quote:
Americans must be free to contribute only to the religious groups of their choosing. Voucher programs violate this principle by forcing all taxpayers to underwrite religious education. Often, religious schools promote sectarian dogma and take controversial stands on issues such as gay rights, the role of women in society and reproductive freedom. Taxpayers should not be required to subsidize the spread of religious/moral opinions they may strongly disagree with. All religious projects including schooling should be funded with voluntary contributions from church members.

Here is proof from AU that once gay rights becomes powerfully political (even more) that "Christian Schools" are doomed.

In an effort to debate this particular question without getting bogged down in the wider issues raised in the other thread, I am opening this thread.

So:

Are there even isolated instances of Christian schools being closed down only because of their position on homosexuality?

Even if we cannot find any such cases, would such closures be justified? Why or why not?

Even if we cannot find such cases, is there any real evidence that such closures are imminent?

Wild speculation does not count. What is required is actual evidence that governmental bodies have discussed or are seriously considering such action, again, only because of the schools position on homosexuality.

This is NOT a thread to debate the morality or immorality of homosexuality.

In addition, this is not a thread to debate the existence or non-existence of the so-called gay agenda. We are only interested in official actions by governmental bodies that have the effect of shutting down a school or schools with a Christian affiliation.

Opinions by private citizens (except forum members), political organizations, advocacy groups, etc., are irrelevant.


Vouchers, tax exemptions, and other similar policies are not relevant. Christian schools can and do exist without the presence of vouchers or other special treatment, and so, by themselves, do not result in the shutting down of schools.[/i]

[Shamgar]

Funny don't remember Christ saying. . . . run down to Caesar and get accredited. . . .so if the schools are getting closed. . . .yahoooo. . . . .that will cut down on heresy.. . . .

It is not relevent to the debate question whether the schools in question are heretical or not. It is possible but not likely that a school be set up that is not heretical by your standards. The question for debate would be, for you, should such a school be outlawed if it discriminated against homosexuals.

The rest of your post is completely off-topic. The moderators have asked you before to remain on topic. Please do.

Oh hardly since since accredidation is determined by a board. The board has established heresies as their standard for accrediations (No discriminatino based on race religion etc - heresies that do not exist in the Christian Scriptures). Those institution ("Christain" schools) failing to comply with their heresies lose accredidation. . . .and since this "lutheran" school is a herectic since they preach against the hersy of "tolerance" they risk losing accredidation. . . .so it is all based on heresy. . . .feeling hoppy today? hahahahhaaaaaa

In another thread, the following statement was made.

Ask that to the schools that will be denied accreditation for believing homosexuality is not natural or acceptable. That is to say, the outlawing of Christian education.

[Shamgar]

Moderator Intervention

It is irrelevent to the question whether the school is behaving or if another debater is being hypocritical. Please address the issues for debate.

Sorry but the poster 1John2_26 posted the information for discussion which he thought was relevant. . . .so since he introduced the evidenced himself, he has opened himself opened to the good and bad of the article. . . and the journalist who is "neutral" thought it was important to present both sides of the issue. . . .which is why he included the word "hypocrisy." Oh how the shoe fits. . . .

[micatala]

In "European Union To Criminalize ‘Homophobia’", there is no reference to schools or school closings. In "Christianity under Attack", you refer to legislation not passed. As far as I can see the Guy Adams piece is just a rant.

The California Lutheran High School case is relevent.

I would partially agree.

In the California Lutheran High School case, and some of the others mentioned, there is the possibility that CHristian Schools would be required to change some of their practices. FOr example, their is the potential they might be required to accept homosexual students or employees, which they would not do without the presence of anti-discrimination laws.

This is a legitimate issue for debate, but if it does lead or have the potential to lead to the actual closure of the school, or even loss of accreditation, by action of the state, then it is not really relevant to the thread.

It's just a matter of time. The club members (secularists, humanists, liberals, skeptics, agnostics, freethinkers, progressives, socialists, yada-yada . . .) allied against Christians will see to the demise of freedoms even within their own schools, EVEN, if outstanding education is gained from these schools.

I would characterize this as opinion with little if any substantiating evidence. Simply to make the claim that it is 'a matter of time' without specific credible evidence that this is likely does not meet the threshold. IN addition, I reiterate that simply placing some limits on the practices of CHristian Schools is not the issue. The issue is them being closed.

After all, it is unreasonable to suggest that their should be absolutely no limits on the practices of Christian schools. IF they are to be accredited, they must comply with certain standards of education. If they are to seek funds from the government or private individuals to support the school, there are certain expectations of integrity, etc.

Expecting Christian Schools to comply with anti-discrimination laws might be found to be an egregious violation of religious freedom by some, and again, it is a worthy issue to debate, but there is another thread where this has already come up, and it is not really appropriate here.

[McCulloch]

It is not relevent to the debate question whether the schools in question are heretical or not.

Oh hardly since since accredidation is determined by a board. The board has established heresies as their standard for accrediations (No discrimination based on race religion etc - heresies that do not exist in the Christian Scriptures). Those institution ("Christain" schools) failing to comply with their heresies lose accredidation. . . .and since this "lutheran" school is a herectic since they preach against the hersy of "tolerance" they risk losing accredidation. . . .so it is all based on heresy.

Heresy

• (n) any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position
• (n) a belief that rejects the orthodox tenets of a religion

So, your argument is that since the principles of our current secular government are heretical, any schools which operate under their guidelines are, by definition, heretical. Heretical schools should be shut down by secular governments.

To pose the question in terms that you can properly address, imagine that someone were to establish a school which was not heretical, by your definition of heresy. Would that school prohibit homosexual students from attending? Would the secular government be justified in closing it down based only on its discrimination of homosexuals, if any?

[McCulloch]

Sorry but the poster 1John2_26 posted the information for discussion which he thought was relevant. . . .so since he introduced the evidenced himself, he has opened himself opened to the good and bad of the article. . . and the journalist who is "neutral" thought it was important to present both sides of the issue. . . .which is why he included the word "hypocrisy." Oh how the shoe fits. . . .

As pointed out by the moderator, most of 1John's information was also irrelevant.

[McCulloch]

The California Lutheran High School case is relevant.

In the California Lutheran High School case, and some of the others mentioned, there is the possibility that CHristian Schools would be required to change some of their practices. FOr example, their is the potential they might be required to accept homosexual students or employees, which they would not do without the presence of anti-discrimination laws.

This is a legitimate issue for debate, but if it does lead or have the potential to lead to the actual closure of the school, or even loss of accreditation, by action of the state, then it is not really relevant to the thread.

The reason that I have said that this one case is relevant is that it has the potential to lead to the acual closure of the school by an action of the state. If the school does not comply with the court ordered changes, the courts being one arm of the state, what might the consequences be? School closure is a real possibility. It is a bit speculative at this point, I do not know if the school is going to appeal the decision, or if it will comply or if it will not comply. We also do not know what the courts would do if the school does not comply. So, in the strictest sense, this case does not answer the question, "Are Christian Schools Being Outlawed?" But it is still relevant since it does address "Even if we cannot find such cases, is there any real evidence that such closures are imminent?" if we allow a little latitude and replace the word imminent with possible or likely.

[Shamgar]

Sorry but the poster 1John2_26 posted the information for discussion which he thought was relevant. . . .so since he introduced the evidenced himself, he has opened himself opened to the good and bad of the article. . . and the journalist who is "neutral" thought it was important to present both sides of the issue. . . .which is why he included the word "hypocrisy." Oh how the shoe fits. . . .

As pointed out by the moderator, most of 1John's information was also irrelevant.

As Shamgar pointed out kangaroo courts are hoppy. . . . and besides Martin Luther, the head of the protestant movement, never promoted "tolerance" "equal rights", "civil rights,", etc. . . . . .so either way the "lutheran" church is made up of hypocrite spromoting heresy. . . .heresy against the Scriptures or heresy against the accredidation board. . . .

As we have already said, they cannot endure to hear or to see that we accursed Goyim should glory in the Messiah as our chemdath, and that we are as good as they are or as they think they are. Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew.

Luther's Works: The Christian In Society IV. Vol 47. American Edition. Edited by Franklin Sherman. (Philadelphia: 1981) ISBN: 0-8006-0347-8. Page 217.

[McCulloch]

As Shamgar pointed out kangaroo courts are hoppy.

As far as I can see this sentence is irrelevant. However, in order not to seem part of a kangaroo court, I will ask you to explain its relevance to the debate.

and besides Martin Luther, the head of the protestant movement, never promoted "tolerance" "equal rights", "civil rights,", etc. . . . . .so either way the "lutheran" church is made up of hypocrites promoting heresy. . . .heresy against the Scriptures or heresy against the accredidation board. . . .

As a point of fact, Martin Luther is not usually looked upon as the head of the protestant movement. He was the founder of one branch of protestantism. I am familiar with Lutheran hypocrisy, intolerance and heresy in the past. They have probably progressed (or regressed or at least changed) their viewpoints in the past few centuries. At the risk of being repetitive, could you please explain how this point addresses the question for debate?

As we have already said, they cannot endure to hear or to see that we accursed Goyim should glory in the Messiah as our chemdath, and that we are as good as they are or as they think they are. Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew.

Luther's Works: The Christian In Society IV. Vol 47. American Edition. Edited by Franklin Sherman. (Philadelphia: 1981) ISBN: 0-8006-0347-8. Page 217.

I am an atheist, so you may have to explain it slowly to me. I wish to be fair and impartial, so you have a chance to explain how this point is relevant. How exactly does Martin Luther's anti-semitism relate to the issue of homosexuality with regard to Christian schools? It seems like a bit of a stretch to me.

[micatala]

The reason that I have said that this one case is relevant is that it has the potential to lead to the acual closure of the school by an action of the state. If the school does not comply with the court ordered changes, the courts being one arm of the state, what might the consequences be? School closure is a real possibility. It is a bit speculative at this point, I do not know if the school is going to appeal the decision, or if it will comply or if it will not comply. We also do not know what the courts would do if the school does not comply. So, in the strictest sense, this case does not answer the question, "Are Christian Schools Being Outlawed?" But it is still relevant since it does address "Even if we cannot find such cases, is there any real evidence that such closures are imminent?" if we allow a little latitude and replace the word imminent with possible or likely.

OK, I see your point. It is conceivable the court would decide to close the school. It does hinge a bit on the likelihood that the court might close the school as a part of its judgment. Personally, I find this extremely unlikely. If there had been a previous case of this happening under analogous circumstances I would be less skeptical.

We could certainly research precedents, but based on casual observance of similar cases, it seems much more likely that the court would enforce attendance of the lesbian student (as for example in the famous civil rights cases where blacks were escorted into schools), impose a fine, or perhaps take action against particular school officials (although I don't know if there is any precedence for this latter action).

[McCulloch]

OK, I see your point.

Hey, I did not say it was a good or strong case. Just that it was, perhaps marginally, relevant. Considering the amount of irrelevant material in this thread, that is significant. As I said in Post #2, Waiting for evidence.
Waiting...

If the Lutheran High School case is the strongest evidence available, then we can answer the question for debate in the negative and move on to other things.