Johnny Coli Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Duble duh, my ass. Military recruiters have been fixtures on high school and college campuses for decades. So much so that student EXPECT to see them and recieve contact and materials from them. So answer the original question. Why is a banning based on ideology FINE in one case but WRONG in another? 340921[/snapback] Since when is being pregnant an ideology? Blzrul's original post was pointing out the hypocrisy of a catholic school (a religion whose ideology has been pretty clearly anti-abortion) banning a student who is pregnant (who chose to carry her baby to full term, rather than abort it, going along with the schools ideology, so-to-speak) from getting her diploma along with her peers, simply because she is pregnant. Seems like text-book hypocrisy to me. I fail to see how your attempt to jam the "military recruiters in schools" debate into this thread makes any sense.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Blzrul's original post was pointing out the hypocrisy of a catholic school (a religion whose ideology has been pretty clearly anti-abortion) banning a student who is pregnant (who chose to carry her baby to full term, rather than abort it, going along with the schools ideology, so-to-speak) from getting her diploma along with her peers, simply because she is pregnant. Seems like text-book hypocrisy to me. Well...the Catholic Church is also against premarital sex, so banning the girl from graduation is consistent with that. Of course, then they should also ban the father...so that reasoning merely shifts the hypocrisy from the "abortion" argument to the "gender equality" argument... I would point out, though, that blzrul chose NOT to use this as an example of the church's hypocritical stance, as you so astutely did. Rather, she chose to use it as a blanket condemnation of "conservatism" and "red states"...which makes RkFast's stupidity if not excusable, than at least not improper in view of blzrul establishing the "stupidity" precedent.
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Safety concerns? Being pregnant is a safety concern? I know pregancies can be risky for some women, but banned from school because it is a "safety concern?" Something is not adding up here. 340943[/snapback] Remember... When I hear "Safety" being bandied about... There is always something else behind it... It is a full-proof tactic? You are totally right, something doesn't add up?
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 You gotta pretty air-tight screen name! Pretty funny stuff!
blzrul Posted May 20, 2005 Author Posted May 20, 2005 Well...the Catholic Church is also against premarital sex, so banning the girl from graduation is consistent with that. Of course, then they should also ban the father...so that reasoning merely shifts the hypocrisy from the "abortion" argument to the "gender equality" argument... I would point out, though, that blzrul chose NOT to use this as an example of the church's hypocritical stance, as you so astutely did. Rather, she chose to use it as a blanket condemnation of "conservatism" and "red states"...which makes RkFast's stupidity if not excusable, than at least not improper in view of blzrul establishing the "stupidity" precedent. 341233[/snapback] You're the one throwing blankets. I clearly stated "Compassionate Conservatism" which is the rallying cry for the 21st-century Victorians who talk out of both sides of their mouths. And I said from the heart of the Red States, which is unarguably where AL is located. I didn't say all Red States are full of hypocrites. They certainly fall short of their goals given their top rankings in divorce and the like, but as Nancy Reagan pointed out she and Ronnie should be respected for their values and not disparaged because their own family didn't measure up. In any event my point indeed was the hypocrisy of making this girl wear the scarlet letter while the guy, with whom 50% of the fault lies, apparently has no guilt in the matter whatsoever to judge by the actions of this school. Jesus would have embraced her. He loves the outcast, the downtrodden and the abused. He has no love for the abusers.
Wacka Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 21st century Victorians? as opposed to the 21st century Roman Orgyists on the left? I think the left is PO'd that they weren't around in the 60's and want to bring it back.
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 20, 2005 Posted May 20, 2005 Nice dodge. 341171[/snapback] It's not a dodge. They banned one party for being irresponsible but not the other, who was at least equally irresponsible. It's a double standard, and a sexist one at that. What gives? Methinks someone else is doing the dodging here. It does take two, after all.
Chilly Posted May 21, 2005 Posted May 21, 2005 Its my believe that most Catholics are sufferers of repressed homosexual energy. If anyone can name who I got that from (replace Catholics with Republicans) I'll give you 5 points!
Alaska Darin Posted May 21, 2005 Posted May 21, 2005 Safety concerns? Being pregnant is a safety concern? I know pregancies can be risky for some women, but banned from school because it is a "safety concern?" Something is not adding up here. 340943[/snapback] Perhaps the administration is concerned that teen pregnancy is a communicable disease.
blzrul Posted May 22, 2005 Author Posted May 22, 2005 More family values! I wonder if the religious right ever reads the newspapers...look at the kind of crap that goes on in the "Bible Belt"! Not that this stuff doesn't happen other places, but considering all the crowing about Godliness that comes out of these people one would think they'd find this somewhat galling...yuck. I guess I am naive thinking they'd actually walk the talk. ha.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Christians bad. Filghtsuit! Nosepick! Halliburton!
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 More family values! I wonder if the religious right ever reads the newspapers...look at the kind of crap that goes on in the "Bible Belt"! Not that this stuff doesn't happen other places, but considering all the crowing about Godliness that comes out of these people one would think they'd find this somewhat galling...yuck. I guess I am naive thinking they'd actually walk the talk. ha. 342147[/snapback] Way to paint - again with a broad brush there. I'm sure this one backwoods church in Louisana is representative of the entirety of the Christian South. Is there anything you don't over-generalize to the point of brain-damaged absurdity?
sm@ub Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 I agree that one should not generalize when discussing Christianity. However, having been raised an evangelical Christian, I DO understand as to why people make such broad generalizations. This is the end-result of what is perceived to be the rather arrogant nature of Christians, from the perspective that they believe themselves to be above all others because of the sanctity of their belief system. I know this first hand...they deem themselves to be right, while all others are absolutely wrong. Because of this, they're going to heaven, and everyone else is going to hell! That is why when illicit or idiotic things occur within the confines of a Christian church, such as the two situations mentioned in this thread, non-Christians enjoy pointing them out. Personally, I love seeing them knocked off of their soapbox too!!
UConn James Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Way to paint - again with a broad brush there. I'm sure this one backwoods church in Louisana is representative of the entirety of the Christian South. Is there anything you don't over-generalize to the point of brain-damaged absurdity? 342309[/snapback] I'd wager that, collectively, there's a lot more of these kinds of cases in small denominations across the country than in the entire Catholic Church.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 What burns me up is that the smae people who rail against Christianity would openly support other religions. NEWS FLASH: all religions are corrupt in one way or another. They're human inventions, and therefore subject to human failings.
OBXBILLSFAN Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Why would anyone rail against conservatism, Christianity, or any belief system based on one, or a handful, of incidents? I never see anything here about fanatical Muslim terrorists slaughtering innocent people on a daily basis. Apparently that's far more acceptable to some. After all, 9/11 was our fault, and Saddam is really a nice fellow who should still be in power.
UConn James Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 I never see anything here about fanatical Muslim terrorists slaughtering innocent people on a daily basis. 342440[/snapback] You must not read the board very often. Thanks for the red herring. So what exactly does that mean; everyone else gets carte blanche to be a hypocrite?
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 Way to paint - again with a broad brush there. I'm sure this one backwoods church in Louisana is representative of the entirety of the Christian South. Is there anything you don't over-generalize to the point of brain-damaged absurdity? 342309[/snapback] Yeah, Radical Islam
Ghost of BiB Posted May 23, 2005 Posted May 23, 2005 More family values! I wonder if the religious right ever reads the newspapers...look at the kind of crap that goes on in the "Bible Belt"! Not that this stuff doesn't happen other places, but considering all the crowing about Godliness that comes out of these people one would think they'd find this somewhat galling...yuck. I guess I am naive thinking they'd actually walk the talk. ha. 342147[/snapback] What are you wearing? Crap, you're left coast. Probably something with ruffles buttoned tight around the neck. Sort of Dana Carvey-ish?
Pac_Man Posted May 24, 2005 Posted May 24, 2005 Considering how opposed the Left is to making generalizations based on race or gender, its willingness to generalize about the entire Christian Church and compassionate conservative movement based on one isolated incident is blatant hypocrisy. Apparently, the Left believes generalizations based on gender are inherently bad, unless directed against men. Generalizations based on race are bad, unless directed against whites. Generalizations about religious people are bad, unless directed against Christians. Generalizations about people based on culture are bad, unless directed against Southerners. Tolerance is to be celebrated, except when it comes to tolerating right wing ideas. The list is nearly endless.
Recommended Posts