blzrul Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 You go girl! From the heart of the Red States, if there IS such a place: whilst the father of this illegitimate child was included in the high school graduation, the mother was excluded. So she walked across the stage anyway. And the cops hauled her family out. So VERY Christian. Freaking hypcrites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm@ub Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The best part of that article was the last paragraph, where it states: "The father of Cosby's child, also a senior at the school, was allowed to participate in graduation." This is a classic example of the sexism that Christians seem to embrace! They are hypocrites...couldn't agree more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 I wonder if they would have let her participate if she had an early-term abortion instead of having the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 You know it was all her fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 The best part of that article was the last paragraph, where it states: "The father of Cosby's child, also a senior at the school, was allowed to participate in graduation." This is a classic example of the sexism that Christians seem to embrace! They are hypocrites...couldn't agree more! 340449[/snapback] Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN. But back to the topic at hand..... So the banning of a person or group who goes against the ideology or "rules" of a campus in one situation is acceptable (banning of military from colleges and schools) but UNacceptable in this situation. Why? Hypocrites? Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN. But back to the topic at hand..... So the banning of a person or group who goes against the ideology or "rules" of a campus in one situation is acceptable (banning of military from colleges and schools) but UNacceptable in this situation. Why? Hypocrites? Yup. 340580[/snapback] You forgot to mention a WOMAN WITH CHILD, OUT OF WEDLOCK? I take Joseph was allowed to graduate? Hmmmmmm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Wasn't the Virgin Mary a "teenage statistic?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN. 340580[/snapback] Mary Magdaline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 20, 2005 Author Share Posted May 20, 2005 Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN. But back to the topic at hand..... So the banning of a person or group who goes against the ideology or "rules" of a campus in one situation is acceptable (banning of military from colleges and schools) but UNacceptable in this situation. Why? Hypocrites? Yup. 340580[/snapback] Uh DUH - she was a member of the student body NOT AN OUTSIDER. DOUBLE-DUH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Did Brandon, Dylan, Kelly, Brenda, David and Andrea all shout in unison "DONNA MARTIN GRADUATES! DONNA MARTIN GRADUATES! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 You go girl! From the heart of the Red States, if there IS such a place: whilst the father of this illegitimate child was included in the high school graduation, the mother was excluded. So she walked across the stage anyway. And the cops hauled her family out. So VERY Christian. Freaking hypcrites. 340412[/snapback] Since when did the Roman Catholics ever proclaim to be compassionate conservatives? Your effort here is about as transparent as they come, even to an agnostic such as myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 even to an agnostic such as myself. 340817[/snapback] You know what, my wife calls herself an agnostic. I call her an antagonist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 You go girl! From the heart of the Red States, if there IS such a place: whilst the father of this illegitimate child was included in the high school graduation, the mother was excluded. So she walked across the stage anyway. And the cops hauled her family out. So VERY Christian. Freaking hypcrites. 340412[/snapback] Do you pretend to be this outraged by Islamic "Honor" Killings or is it just an anti Christian thing? Like the ACLU's mantra, "We dont hate religion, just Christianity!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berg Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 You know what, my wife calls herself an agnostic. I call her an antagonist. 340821[/snapback] To her face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 To her face? 340824[/snapback] Yes I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Uh DUH - she was a member of the student body NOT AN OUTSIDER. DOUBLE-DUH. 340709[/snapback] 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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] Well, you know those pregnant women. They don't account for their added girth and soon enough, the dais is crashing down and then everybody's dead. Sounds like the church wants to shake off the dust from the archaic meaning of 'confinement.' See no evil.... I guess she should've been like all the other Catholic girls and just had an abortion and then said ten Our Fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Nevermind the fact that the most highly regarded human being in the Catholic Church is A WOMAN. But back to the topic at hand..... So the banning of a person or group who goes against the ideology or "rules" of a campus in one situation is acceptable (banning of military from colleges and schools) but UNacceptable in this situation. Why? Hypocrites? Yup. 340580[/snapback] Umm, they didn't ban the father from graduation. What gives there? Oh, right, they were respecting the young woman... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Umm, they didn't ban the father from graduation. What gives there? Oh, right, they were respecting the young woman... 340976[/snapback] Nice dodge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 You gotta pretty air-tight screen name! Pretty funny stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 20, 2005 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted May 20, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 21, 2005 Share 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted May 21, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Christians bad. Filghtsuit! Nosepick! Halliburton! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm@ub Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OBXBILLSFAN Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted May 23, 2005 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pac_Man Posted May 24, 2005 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts