Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Proof that Christians are not allowed to have opinions

* * * * * 2 votes

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
61 replies to this topic

#1
winsomebulldog

winsomebulldog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts
A 15 year old boy was asked to write and opinion piece for his school newspaper on the merits of homosexual couples adopting children. Then, when he dared to suggest that it is wrong (and worse, quoted Bible verses to support his position) he was punished and threatened by school officials.

See article, here.

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

See the boy's original article, as well as the opposing view that was included with it.

I read it and saw nothing that I would describe as even remotely akin to "bullying" and/or "disrespect." But then, we now live in a society where anyone who does not openly embrace, support, and even champion gay/homosexual causes is labeled a bigot and far worse.

I am no fan of frivolous lawsuits and am not really sure if this situation warrants one or not, but at the very least, the school system should have to issue an apology to the boy for their behavior. I'd be amazed if that actually happened, however.

#2
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts

A 15 year old boy was asked to write and opinion piece for his school newspaper on the merits of homosexual couples adopting children. Then, when he dared to suggest that it is wrong (and worse, quoted Bible verses to support his position) he was punished and threatened by school officials.

See article, here.

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

See the boy's original article, as well as the opposing view that was included with it.

I read it and saw nothing that I would describe as even remotely akin to "bullying" and/or "disrespect." But then, we now live in a society where anyone who does not openly embrace, support, and even champion gay/homosexual causes is labeled a bigot and far worse.

I am no fan of frivolous lawsuits and am not really sure if this situation warrants one or not, but at the very least, the school system should have to issue and apology to the boy for their behavior. I'd be amazed if that actually happened, however.


From the school's perspective, I can definitely see the reasoning behind why they did it (not wanting to be sued). However, with by viewpoints being on the same paper, I can definitely see a constitutional issue in play here. Rosenberger v Univ of Virginia specifically states that a school cannot deny funding to a student newspaper promoting religious views when it provides funding to most other student publications. This could possibly apply as both sides of the issue were shared.

See http://law2.umkc.edu...osenberger.html for more info... unfortunately it is a university case not a high school one.

#3
winsomebulldog

winsomebulldog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts


A 15 year old boy was asked to write and opinion piece for his school newspaper on the merits of homosexual couples adopting children. Then, when he dared to suggest that it is wrong (and worse, quoted Bible verses to support his position) he was punished and threatened by school officials.

See article, here.

After the op-ed was published, a gay couple whose child attend s the high school, complained.

The school immediately issued an apology – stating Wegner’s opinion was a “form of bullying and disrespect.”

“Offensive articles cultivating a negative environment of disrespect are not appropriate or condoned by the Shawano School District,” the statement read. “We sincerely apologize to anyone we may have offended and are taking steps to prevent items of this nature from happening in the future.”

See the boy's original article, as well as the opposing view that was included with it.

I read it and saw nothing that I would describe as even remotely akin to "bullying" and/or "disrespect." But then, we now live in a society where anyone who does not openly embrace, support, and even champion gay/homosexual causes is labeled a bigot and far worse.

I am no fan of frivolous lawsuits and am not really sure if this situation warrants one or not, but at the very least, the school system should have to issue and apology to the boy for their behavior. I'd be amazed if that actually happened, however.


From the school's perspective, I can definitely see the reasoning behind why they did it (not wanting to be sued). However, with by viewpoints being on the same paper, I can definitely see a constitutional issue in play here. Rosenberger v Univ of Virginia specifically states that a school cannot deny funding to a student newspaper promoting religious views when it provides funding to most other student publications. This could possibly apply as both sides of the issue were shared.

See http://law2.umkc.edu...osenberger.html for more info... unfortunately it is a university case not a high school one.

Fear of being sued in no way excuses the behavior of the superintendent toward the student. That aside, the real point here is that it was an OpEd piece in which opposing opinions were sought out. One look at the article is all the evidence that is needed to prove that. It is not the school or the school paper promoting either view. The paper itself in no way endorsed either opinion, but only sought to present both sides from the perspective of students. I believe that it wouldn't have mattered if the student had refrained from using any Bible verses - though I am convinced that doing so only inflamed the school officials and presumably the "couple" who complained even more. If he'd merely referred to studies that suggest children need both mother and father, the gay couple in care would likely still have called the school in a huff. Because we just aren't allowed to so much as question the gay lifestyle in any way, shape or form. The fact that the boy is a Christian only gave them more reason to complain.

#4
ByFaithAlone

ByFaithAlone

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,004 posts

Fear of being sued in no way excuses the behavior of the superintendent toward the student.


I agree. However, the school was stuck between a rock and a hard place. As it is a lot easier for schools to deal with freedom of speech issues (all the school has to do is prove that the publication somehow disrupted the educational process) than discrimination issues (which is probably what they would have faced), they made the decision they felt was least risky. Do I agree with it? Of course not, but I can see where they are coming from.

That aside, the real point here is that it was an OpEd piece in which opposing opinions were sought out. One look at the article is all the evidence that is needed to prove that. It is not the school or the school paper promoting either view. The paper itself in no way endorsed either opinion, but only sought to present both sides from the perspective of students.


I don't know if they were sought out. I don't know how it works in their school, but in mine, even the opinions are written by newspaper staff and closely vetted by the school. The fact that the school vets the paper makes it their responsibility if it interferes with the management of the school.

I believe that it wouldn't have mattered if the student had refrained from using any Bible verses - though I am convinced that doing so only inflamed the school officials and presumably the "couple" who complained even more. If he'd merely referred to studies that suggest children need both mother and father, the gay couple in care would likely still have called the school in a huff. Because we just aren't allowed to so much as question the gay lifestyle in any way, shape or form. The fact that the boy is a Christian only gave them more reason to complain.


We have no evidence either way on this. However, more recent evidence suggests that gay parents are just as good as straight ones.
See: http://www.huffingto..._n_1208659.html

#5
winsomebulldog

winsomebulldog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts

That aside, the real point here is that it was an OpEd piece in which opposing opinions were sought out. One look at the article is all the evidence that is needed to prove that. It is not the school or the school paper promoting either view. The paper itself in no way endorsed either opinion, but only sought to present both sides from the perspective of students.


I don't know if they were sought out. I don't know how it works in their school, but in mine, even the opinions are written by newspaper staff and closely vetted by the school. The fact that the school vets the paper makes it their responsibility if it interferes with the management of the school.

The article says, "Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt."

A look at the actual newspaper article depicts both opinions laid out side by side with a staged photo in the middle what I can only assume to be the article writers posed in a mock boxing stance. It was clearly intended to be exactly what it was, two opposing views of the topic. There is no evidence what-so-ever that the article in any way "interfered in the management of the school." There were no riots or demonstrations, no rallies of offended students. There was just one phone call from the parents of one student and that was all it took for the superintendent to turn on the boy and treat him deplorably.

I believe that it wouldn't have mattered if the student had refrained from using any Bible verses - though I am convinced that doing so only inflamed the school officials and presumably the "couple" who complained even more. If he'd merely referred to studies that suggest children need both mother and father, the gay couple in care would likely still have called the school in a huff. Because we just aren't allowed to so much as question the gay lifestyle in any way, shape or form. The fact that the boy is a Christian only gave them more reason to complain.


We have no evidence either way on this. However, more recent evidence suggests that gay parents are just as good as straight ones.
See: http://www.huffingto..._n_1208659.html

And that isn't the point of my post. It really doesn't matter if the boy's opinion was right or wrong. My point here is that our society no longer allows us to even have an opinion on such matters. Not without being called all sorts of unflattering names. If one does not champion the gay cause, then one is by default a bigot, bully, idiot, homophobe, the list goes on and on.

Imagine a different scenario: The article topic is whether or not there are any alternatives to Evolution. The opposing author offers the opinion that the only way to reject Evolution is to reject science. A parent, who happens to be a highly educated scientist who also supports "Intelligent Design," calls the school to complain that they are offended.

Now, do you think for one moment that the superintendent would have reacted in anything close to the same way? Would the school have issued an immediate apology and called the student a bully, ignorant, and threatened them with suspension, all without notifying his parents? No. Because it's perfectly fine in today's society to dismiss and even ridicule Christians and their views. But the homosexual lobby is so powerful these days that even the mere hint of disagreement with anything they say is grounds for unmitigated abuse and ridicule. And that is why I posted this. Because it's about far more than just this one school system's actions. It's about the prevailing culture in this country and how skewed it has become.

#6
MorningGlory

MorningGlory

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,597 posts
I agree there is a definite gay agenda in the U.S. today....and it is a militant one. However, Christians (or any other group) have the right to express religious views, a right that is protected by the Constitution. If we accept censorship and persecution because of our faith, that is what we will get. We have to be just as militant in protecting our rights as they have been. There is NO law that guarantees an American freedom FROM religion; only OF religion....or lack thereof. That being said.... I know they fear lawsuits, it's the way our society works. Still, the few are dictating to the many and we simply can't put up with it.

#7
OneLight

OneLight

    Royal Member

  • Servant
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,289 posts

The article says, "Wegner, a student at Shawano High School, was asked to write an op-ed for the school newspaper about whether gays should be allowed to adopt. Wegner, who is a Christian, wrote in opposition. Another student wrote in favor of allowing gays to adopt."


knowing that there was opposition to what Wegner wrote, I wonder what would happen of someone stepped up and complained about what the one in favor of allowing gays to adopt wrote, if they would treat that writer in the same light?

#8
amor

amor

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,640 posts
This article was published in a school magazine and was therefore passed for publication by someone in an editorial role. The editors and ultimately the publishers have the right to refuse to publish an article or to apologise for an article that they retrospectively the feel was in some way offensive.

However, having chosen to publish the article and found that it has caused offence they have no right to bully the writer of the article who was both commisioned to write it by someone in an editorial role and then had the article approved for publication. For me the most serious aspect of this is the behaviour of the school superintendent towards the writer, one of the students in his school. His bullying approach clearly renders him unfit to hold the role that he has.

#9
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,631 posts

.... the behaviour of the school superintendent towards the writer, one of the students in his school. His bullying approach clearly renders him unfit to hold the role that he has....

:thumbsup:

His Role

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke 11:23

Is Not That Unusual

Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2 Timothy 3:12

#10
winsomebulldog

winsomebulldog

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,058 posts

This article was published in a school magazine and was therefore passed for publication by someone in an editorial role. The editors and ultimately the publishers have the right to refuse to publish an article or to apologise for an article that they retrospectively the feel was in some way offensive.

However, having chosen to publish the article and found that it has caused offence they have no right to bully the writer of the article who was both commisioned to write it by someone in an editorial role and then had the article approved for publication. For me the most serious aspect of this is the behaviour of the school superintendent towards the writer, one of the students in his school. His bullying approach clearly renders him unfit to hold the role that he has.

Yes, this was why I posted in the first place. It is one thing for the school to take a look at the editorials in hindsight and determine that perhaps it was not the wisest choice of topic for a high school newspaper, leading to an apology for the entire article. (And I mean BOTH sides of it.) It is quite another for them to issue an apology wherein they single out one of the opinions and call it discrimination and bullying, then proceed to bully and intimidate the writer of that opinion. That is something that I see as inexcusable behavior on the part of the superintendent and the school system as a whole. Even if the superintendent was horribly offended by the opinion of this boy, he still had no right to call him names and threaten him. Period. I see the entire situation as evidence of just how skewed our society has become. Basically, the one who is being blamed here is the boy with the politically incorrect opinion when he, in fact, did nothing wrong. We have fallen so far that the superintendent clearly felt it was perfectly acceptable to treat this teenager with utter contempt so long as he was on the side of "right." It's very sad and if it had been my son, you can bet that I would have been paying the superintendent a visit to discuss his behavior.

To be fair, I have done some further reading and the superintendent says he never met with the student. He basically says every thing the boy is claiming he said and did is a lie. It is up to you to decide who to believe. Using personal experience, I believe both sides are likely exaggerating/downplaying their role in what happened. It's just human nature to do so. Even if the superintendent was not as harsh as has been claimed, it was still wrong for him to single the boy out in any way. It just should not have happened.

#11
MorningGlory

MorningGlory

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,597 posts

This article was published in a school magazine and was therefore passed for publication by someone in an editorial role. The editors and ultimately the publishers have the right to refuse to publish an article or to apologise for an article that they retrospectively the feel was in some way offensive.

However, having chosen to publish the article and found that it has caused offence they have no right to bully the writer of the article who was both commisioned to write it by someone in an editorial role and then had the article approved for publication. For me the most serious aspect of this is the behaviour of the school superintendent towards the writer, one of the students in his school. His bullying approach clearly renders him unfit to hold the role that he has.



I totally agree, amor.

#12
grandma dolittle

grandma dolittle

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 123 posts
I taught Special Education for several years and one day as I stood on hall duty, a girl came down the hall. She was crying. I placed my arm around her and took her to my room. She told me she was saved that week end and she had a burden on her heart for a boy at school and didn't know what to do. She was afraid of his reaction. I stepped way over the line and suggested she pray about it, then if she was still under conviction for the boy, she should talk to him. God would give her the words to say. I then went to my principal and told her what I had done. She said she didn't think the mother would mind that I had talked to her daughter. I was lucky, my principal was the daughter of a preacher, My super was a minister, my coordinator's husband was a minister and most of the teachers were Christians. Oh, Yes, when I talked to the mother, she hugged me and thanked me. :)

#13
AnotherSinner

AnotherSinner

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 903 posts
This is unfortunate. A difference of oppinion if it is not presented in a way that is utterly slanderous, insulting, but with valid points Biblical or otherwise should not be subject or grounds to get an individual into so much trouble. In truth, I would have refused to write the assignment.... but there was nothing wrong with the notion of stating that one is not in support of a homosexual couple adopting if that is an individual's point of view. Scared to see just how much our freedom of choice is being stripped away. There is little to nothing that can be said that could be stated in a way that could upset someone anymore.

#14
brightmorningstar

brightmorningstar

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
What we are increasingly seeing is people in society not just blind to the spiritual and the word of God, but also to sound logic and reason. In a debate on abortion providers in the UK parliament, evidence was presented from the annual accounts of a provider that prophets had been increased by an increase in the number of abortions performed indicating that it was an incentive for the providers to carry out abortions rather than dissuade people. This was not seen as incentive by the pro-choice factions. Really? what does incentive mean then?
The UK government has been championing same sex 'marriage' as a human right. Not only has the European court ruled it isnt, its article 9 and article 18 of of UN Declaration of human rights rules it out.
Some in society are being lead by their own imaginations and not reality.

#15
jasoncran

jasoncran

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,932 posts
like i have said before asking planned parenthood to reduce abortion is liking asking the cigarette makers to make their products healthy for you and les addictive.

#16
brightmorningstar

brightmorningstar

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts

like i have said before asking planned parenthood to reduce abortion is liking asking the cigarette makers to make their products healthy for you and les addictive.

:thumbsup: good one

#17
Arthur Durnan

Arthur Durnan

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,454 posts
Pronounce it far and wide: God never made two men to procreate. Homosexuality is an abomination of the first order in direct opposition to Jesus' powerful declaration in Matthew19 re Holy Judeo-Christian Matrimony. What's the next question?

#18
MorningGlory

MorningGlory

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,597 posts

Pronounce it far and wide: God never made two men to procreate. Homosexuality is an abomination of the first order in direct opposition to Jesus' powerful declaration in Matthew19 re Holy Judeo-Christian Matrimony. What's the next question?



Indeed it is an abomination, Arthur. We still need to pray for those who embrace homosexuality, pray that they will come to the Truth.

#19
brightmorningstar

brightmorningstar

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts

Yes we must still need to pray for those who embrace homosexuality and pray that they will come to the Truth.

And as I said before many are not in such bad shape as those in the church who lie about God. We must love those people too, but as pagans, not Christians. (Matthew 18, 1 Cor 5)

#20
brightmorningstar

brightmorningstar

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
Lifesite news has carried an article about the Roman Catholic church noting that it doesn’t matter how gently, lovingly and respectfully one puts it to certain people, that same-sex relationships are wrong, they only see it as hate. Not only do they see the criticism of the relationships as somehow hating them, but they want to punish anyone who does.
This from the article..


Persons with SSA are themselves filled with anger and hate and they project that on anyone who opposes their demands...
We must constantly remind ourselves that under their anger and their hate, persons with SSA are wounded men and women. As small children they accepted the lie that they were different. They were unable to embrace their true identities as sons and daughters of God. In spite of their anger and false accusations, we must continue to speak the truth. Only by this means can we help them find their way out of the lies in which have been trapped. And most of all we need to pray for them.





Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network