School Appropriate

[comrade_general]

So read this:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/29/11939795-teen-wins-right-to-wear-jesus-is-not-a-homophobe-t-shirt-to-school?lite/

Now what do you think? To me this seems like the LGBT community expecting extra rights because they are the 'hot topic' right now.

Yes the first amendment gives him the right to express himself, but is the shirt school appropriate? Consider that the first amendment also gives the apparent right for a student to wear a shirt with the 'f yeah' guy on it:

Spoiler

But is it school appropriate? No. Would he be allowed to wear it in school? Absolutely not, without question. Which shows that the first amendment is not a viable argument.

Going back to my first thought about extra rights; I would bet good money that if someone in that school had worn a shirt that said "Jesus is a homophobe", this kid would have been one of the first to demand that the shirt be prohibited. Double standards really piss me off.

[Jubal]

Tbh, the bible is a pretty homophobic document so I'm not quite sure where he's coming from. I object to the idea that this is "the LGBT community" doing it like they're some big monolithic entity with one hive-mind, though. There's absolutely no suggestion that any larger LGBT groups were involved in this protest or anything. Simpler explanation, the kid's just a bit of an ass. 

Generally I'm in favour of highschools having uniforms anyway (what we do in my area, with uniform up to Year 11 then non-uniform for Years 12 and 13, works very well).

[Captain Carthage]

Tbh, the bible is a pretty homophobic document so I'm not quite sure where he's coming from. I object to the idea that this is "the LGBT community" doing it like they're some big monolithic entity with one hive-mind, though. There's absolutely no suggestion that any larger LGBT groups were involved in this protest or anything. Simpler explanation, the kid's just a bit of an ass. 

Generally I'm in favour of highschools having uniforms anyway (what we do in my area, with uniform up to Year 11 then non-uniform for Years 12 and 13, works very well).

It's the idea that the New Testament, specifically the parts involving Jesus Christ never bring up the topic of homosexuality and with all the talk of love and acceptance he did a lot of people assume he was cool with it.

[Jubal]

On the other hand, Leviticus, which includes the bible's main ban on homosexuality, is also included in the Torah. As Jesus was Jewish, we can therefore reasonably assume he obeyed and condoned Jewish scriptures except where explicit statements to the contrary are made.

[Captain Carthage]

Okay I didn't go looking for this I swear, I just found it laying around Tumblr no sources so I'm not sure if it's entirely accurate but here you go.

"The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said "it is finished" when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don't have to circumcise their sons (god's covenant with Jacob), that is why they don't have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god's law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ's sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn't good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do."

And here's the url http://nextyearsgirl.tumblr.com/post/22856125311/stfuconservatives-ethiopienne

[Jubal]

That's something that very much depends on sect and theology; my understanding is that the mainstream protestant and catholic denominations still hold that the laws of the Old Testament are sound. Catholics in particular believe that you have a store of merit and you can improve it by living a good live (which the Old Testament laws are seen as a pretty strong guideline for). Some (in fact many) Protestant sects believe in predestination (that you don't have free will, everything is predetermined and you live in original sin which can never be atoned for by human actions, only by God giving salvation as a free gift), which opens the for the above argument. Nevertheless most of the major theologians from those still think abiding by Leviticus etc is important. In terms of academic theology at least, it would be a rare voice that argued for the invalidity of the Old Testament.

At least, that's my understanding, I've done a fair bit of research on it due to having been studying the German and English reformations in History.

[comrade_general]

You guys are discussing the shirt itself too much.

[Jubal]

I did comment on the situation first.