Principal Eddie Walker Chooses Bigotry Over Job
Others, though, recognize that the conflict may force them to make a choice: uphold personal prejudice or uphold the principles of the job. Which they choose tells us a lot about what they really value most. In the case of Eddie Walker, principal of Irmo High School in South Carolina, we learn that his faith-based animosity towards gays is more important than the work he does with young people, so he's chosen to resign as principal rather than remain where students are allowed to form a club dedicated to fighting homophobic bigotry.
"The formation of this club conflicts with my professional beliefs in that we do not have other clubs at Irmo High School based on sexual orientation, sexual preference, or sexual activity," Principal Eddie Walker told the school community in a letter. ...
"Allowing the formation of this club on our campus conflicts with my professional beliefs and religious convictions. I considered resigning this year but reconsidered because to not fulfill my written contract for the 2008-2009 school year would also conflict with my professional beliefs and religious convictions," he wrote.
"I feel the formation of a Gay/Straight Alliance Club at Irmo High school implies that students joining the club will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex or members of both sexes."
"My decision to resign is a personal choice based on my professional beliefs and religious convictions. I have prayed about this decision for a period of time, and I have a peace about it. I would ask that you respect my choice as I respect your choice to disagree with me on this issue," he wrote.
Source: World Net Daily
The district is accepting his resignation because they are listening to their attorneys — attorneys who have correctly informed the school board that if they allow any non-curricular clubs, they can't discriminate against others on the basis of the content of their speech. The same laws that guarantee Christian students the right to form a religious club or Bible study club guarantees gay and straight students the right to form a club for the purpose of promoting understanding and tolerance of gays.
It's easier for bigots to keep hating gays if they ignore what these gay/straight alliance groups are really about and instead pretend that the purpose is just to promote gay sex. There's nothing in the activities or literature of these groups which suggests anything of the sort, but bigots just see words like "gay" or "homosexual" and it's like waving a red cape in front of a rabid bull — they have to charge as hard and as often as they can.
Eddie Walker's statement is that joining the club implies that members "will have chosen to or will choose to engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex or members of both sexes." Well, duh. Every student who doesn't choose celibacy will, at some point in their lives, engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, opposite sex, or both. So does Walker imagine that if this club didn't form, then all this students would be life-long celibates?
I find it curious that, at the end, Eddie Walker expresses a desire for tolerance for his position, just after he finishes providing false and fallacious reasons for why he doesn't want to tolerate a gay/straight alliance club in the school. Well, I for one do not respect his position — I have no more respect for homophobic bigotry than I do for racial bigotry. I have even less respect for such bigotry when it's faith-based because bigots offering pseudoscientific justifications are at least trying to provide a logical rationale for their hate; faith-based bigotry amounts to nothing more than "my god and religion want me to be prejudiced," which is ultimately an attempt to absolve oneself of responsibility for one's bigotry.
I'm also not sure that I have much respect for his decision to leave. In some ways I'm glad he'll be gone because he won't be able to abuse his position to enforce his bigotry on the students. Generally speaking, it's better for everyone else if the bigots just get out rather than hang around and cause mischief. By leaving, though, it's less likely that he'll learn how wrong he is because he won't have any contact with the students he's so prejudiced against. It's also a dubious moral position to put one's personal bigotry over one's ability to help the students in the school. Leaving says, at least in part, that one's bigotry is so overwhelmingly important and fundamental that it can't be set aside or compartmentalized no matter how much the students might need him. That's sad, in my opinion.
Comments
Sexual orientation does not necessitate sex. People are aware of their orientations LONG before they ever engage in sexual activity (generally). Does he really believe the point of this group is to rally kids to become sexually active? How could someone so obviously admiring of ignorance end up as an education professional?
Another case showing that religious nuts are obsessed with sex, who has it, and with whom. This Walker guy may even be a closet case!
The Ten Commandments, rewritten by the American Religious Reich (and its toadies), in order of importance:
1. Thou shall not have gay sex.
2. Thou shall not have gay sex.
3. Thou shall not have gay sex.
4. Thou shall not have gay sex.
5. Thou shall not have gay sex.
6. Thou shall not have gay sex.
7. Thou shall not have gay sex.
8. Thou shall not have premarital sex.
9. Thou shall not have extramarital sex.
10. Thou shall not kill, steal, covet, etc….
RELIGION IS FAIRY TALES FOR GROWNUPS (AND GROWNUPS SHOULD KNOW BETTER).
His rationale for objecting to the club is indeed risible, unless he seriously expects all students of his school to remain celibate for life.
That said, of the various courses of action one can imagine someone like this taking, resigning is about the most honorable.
Does Eddie Walker really believe that an all-powerful god, who’s in charge of a universe spanning billions of light years and containing millions of galaxies and trillions of stars, gives a rat’s ass about two kids sucking each other off on an obscure planet in an ordinary galaxy?
IT’S THE PRIESTS, STUPID!
I would like to apologize on behalf of my backward state. Irmo is about 20 minutes away by car, and I was very disappointed to hear Principal Walker was so opposed to the club. That very fact illustrates why the club is needed.
I would like to know if any of you who responded so negatively toward Mr. Walker have ever met him or even took the time to read his letter in it’s entirety? I have had the privledge of working for Eddie for four years while he was the director of the Alternative Academy. I have NEVER met a more caring and compassionate man. He gave everything of himself for the worst kinds of students. We dealt with everything from gang members to pregnant teens. He embraced every one of his students. This is not about homosexuality. It is about the fact that a school district whose official sex ed policy promotes abstinece should not have a club based on sex of any kind gay or straight period! Perhaps a better idea would be to have a club for any student who feels threatened or bullied which is the premise of the gay straight alliance. And Paul, someone other than priests has to care about kids and the decisions they make. Your statement is about the most unintelligent thing that I have ever heard. No wonder society is in the shape it is in. Too many people like you and not enough like Eddie Walker!
Jennifer says: I would like to know if any of you who responded so negatively toward Mr. Walker have ever met him or even took the time to read his letter in it’s entirety?
Yes, I read his letter in its entirety. Yes, he’s a faith-based bigot.
Jennifer says: It is about the fact that a school district whose official sex ed policy promotes abstinece [sic] should not have a club based on sex of any kind gay or straight period! Perhaps a better idea would be to have a club for any student who feels threatened or bullied which is the premise of the gay straight alliance.
Your second sentence makes the first one a lie: you admit you know the true purpose of a gay-straight alliance right after repeating the slur that it is about sex.
He’s acting on the courage of his beliefs and isn’t seeking to harm anyone. Besides, I’d think those who are against him because of his personal beliefs, would be glad he’s resigning instead of trying to make sport out of him, something you seem to do with all who disagree with you.
Jennifer’s right to point out that some activities that the club most likely promoted, an assumption which may be incorrect, but is probably not since the overwhelming majority of such clubs do promote such practices, is outside the lines of what the school board was trying to promote. And while there’s a difference between curriculum and what students do on their own, asking that clubs conform to the underlying values of the school board and the curriculum is good policy. If this was just about discrimination this wouldn’t be an issue, and it would most likely be called the Tolerance Club, etc. and deal with bullying of all types of students, including gays. I doubt anyone would have a problem with such a club. But that’s rarely the purpose of a gay/straight alliance.
To mobathorne,
You’re twisting her words. She clearly differentiates between what this club is about and what it should be about. Why must so many of you do that?
Yomin Postelnik says: You’re twisting her words. She clearly differentiates between what this club is about and what it should be about. Why must so many of you do that?
There you go again!
That’s not what the club is about.
Why not have a club specifically to deal with the problems faced with homosexual students. Given how much bigotry is directed their way — by people like Eddie Walker — they need it.
No, we have way too many faith-based bigots.
Yeah, it takes a lot of courage for a Christian to be a bigot or homophobe in modern America.
Prove it.
Oh, wait, you don’t support any of your claims do you?
To which values does this club not conform?
Oh, wait, you don’t answer questions, do you?
Austin,
You saying that I don’t answer questions or support any of my claims is like me calling you “too religiously inclined.” You’re the guy who wrote a hit piece on me and then when challenged to debate, ran with his tail between his legs, leaving it to others to effectively disprove all of your assertions (which you still can’t admit happened, though to everyone else, that much is as clear as day).
The fact is, if the guy made statements against individual gay students, as their principal, your piece on him would be more than warranted. As it turns out, you’re the only one who makes statements against individuals.
Why you choose to always attack people personally and write whole columns on individuals is just a sad mystery. But… I’m wasting my breath.
On this issue, the principal quit out of personal beliefs about groups that were openly encouraging sexual activity. Note that part of his concern was straights meeting straights in a forum that encourages premarital sex, which is against the approved curriculum.
There is a need for groups that prevent bullying and teach mutual respect. This group, according to the school principal, had a formal position that teen sex was ok. Aside from the fact that teen sex usually has nothing to do with love and much more to do with love’s opposite, indifference to others, it also caused any overall message of tolerance to be at least partly drowned out by encouragement of sexual activity. The students would accomplish a lot more good by forming a club dedicated exclusively to tolerance. Why attack the principal? After all, you’d go ape if a group of students decided to form a society that encourages teaching alternative views to evolution, a debate about which you refused to enter after your hit piece on me, but a viewpoint that has a lot of science and logic on its side. I’m sure you’d seek to ban such a group. At least I didn’t hear you denounce the school board that prevented a team from privately praying before a game. Only leftist groups have a right to exist. And a principal who says nothing against gays but simply resigns to voice disapproval of a group must be vilified.
You’re right Yomin; it is a mystery! Why does Austin insist on using real, concrete examples instead of nobly slaying strawmen? I also find his insistence that one support their arguments with facts and logic so bizarre. Why doesn’t he understand the value of unsupported (or even better: unsupportable) claims? And why is making stuff up about people wrong when telling the truth about them isn’t? This is doing my head in, the man is a mystery!
Then point to questions you’ve answered and claims you’ve supported.
Prove they were “openly encouraging sexual activity.”
Austin, I can prove it. I work in a public high school with a GSA. While the techers certainly don’t encourage sex, the existence of the club certainly legitimizes it. I know this from speaking with students who are part of the club. No, I am not a biggot, Yes, I have freinds that are gay. Yes, I think that all kids who feel alone, threatened, or bullied need a place to feel safe. Yomin suggested a Tolerance Club which would be perfect. I really wish everyone would stop looking at this as an attack on gay students. It is not. Eddie simply does not believe that a club founded on sexual preference is appropriate in a public high school. How does wanting kids to abstain from sex until they are old enough to handle the consequences qualify him as a biggot? Again, I know this man personally and will always admire him for caring about ALL students in a way that I have never seen before or am likely to see again.
Now, how does the claim “the existence of the club certainly legitimizes it” manage to “prove” the claim that the club itself “openly encourages sexual activity”? It doesn’t. Far from proving any claims, you’ve simply made a new and weaker claim.
And what, exactly, do you know? What have their statements told you?
But gays in particular don’t deserve one?
Should black students have a club specifically to deal with racism? If not, why not? If so, why is that different?
Opposition to a club created to deal with anti-gay bigotry and violence is no less bigoted than opposition to a club created to deal with racism against blacks.
It doesn’t, but you have yet to demonstrate a connection between the two issues.
I feel satisfied with my staements and positions. I feel that I have made a strong case you just fail to see it or recognize it.
If you think that pretending to “prove” a claim with a related but weaker claim qualifies as a “strong case,” then you are completely unfamiliar with the basics of logic. What I am able to recognize is that you’ve committed a fallacy of circular argument.
You don’t prove the truth of an empirical claim of fact by bringing forward a related and weaker claim; you prove the truth of an empirical claim of fact with empirical evidence. The original claim is that groups like the one in question “openly encouraging sexual activity.” Only direct evidence that such groups do in fact openly encourage sexual activity would qualify as a “strong case.” Your new claim is that the existence of such clubs “legitimizes it [sexual activity].” Only direct evidence that such clubs do in fact legitimize sexual activity would qualify as a “strong case.”
What you have isn’t even a “case,” much less a strong one. If that is enough to “satisfy” you, then this might tell us something about the quality of your judgment where Eddie Walker is concerned, too.
This is actually the first time I have ever blogged about anything. My intention was not to get into a war of words or hurl insults at anyone. My comments stand as they are and anyone who cares to read them is welcome to judge the validity of my arguements for themselves. I have enjoyed our conversation, and have come to the conclusion that we may just need to agree to disagree on this one.
Actually, you aren’t blogging. You’re writing a comment on a blog.
You haven’t done that, either.
You haven’t made an argument, either. An argument is a series of linked propositions and inferences designed to prove the truth of a conclusion. You have, instead, offered a new claim as if it “prove” the truth of an earlier and stronger claim. At no point have you provided any inferences or evidences which would even suggest the truth of the original claim.
The idea that people should “agree to disagree” works well when there is some unprovable question at issue, but it’s little more than pretense when it comes to issues for which strong evidence and argument is theoretically possible. There is, for example, no point in “agreeing to disagree” over the sum of two and two, the distance betweee the moon and the earth, or names of the books published by Stephen King. These are questions for which clear and unambiguous evidence can and should be provided.
The same is true of the original claim in question. It was an empirical claim for which clear and unambiguous empirical evidence should be provided. When it’s not, and those who support the claim utterly fail to even try, then “agreeing to disagree” is just a way to quietly edge to the door in the hopes that no one will notice the absence of those morally and intellectually obliged to support the now-orphaned assertions.
Well, feel free to slip out that door, if you wish, but in doing so the orphaned claims must be declared null and void. They were dropped in these comments with the intention of providing support to a bigot, but if they cannot be supported then they must be tossed over the side like intellectual waste.
Jennfer, you said “No, I am not a biggot, Yes, I have freinds that are gay. Yes, I think that all kids who feel alone, threatened, or bullied need a place to feel safe. Yomin suggested a Tolerance Club which would be perfect.”
If you truly have friends that are gay, then why are you so opposed to a club that promotes understanding and acceptance of gay people? Why is it so hard for you to understand that the GSA IS a tolerance club?
Jennifer, you also said “I really wish everyone would stop looking at this as an attack on gay students. It is not. Eddie simply does not believe that a club founded on sexual preference is appropriate in a public high school.”
Everyone keeps looking at this as an attack on gay students because that is what it IS. Furthermore, your use of the phrase “sexual preference” is rather offensive to me (and to many gay persons). Sexual ORIENTATION is not a choice or preference, so I don’t appreciate the use of a term that implies otherwise. What exactly is inappropriate about a club whose stated goal is to promote tolerance?
Lastly, you said “How does wanting kids to abstain from sex until they are old enough to handle the consequences qualify him as a biggot?”
He is not being called a bigot for supporting sexual abstinence, he is being called a bigot for opposing the promotion of tolerance. Could you please explain why you think tolerance of gays is at odds with promoting sexual abstinence? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
>> An argument is a series of linked propositions and inferences designed to prove the truth of a conclusion
No it isn’t.
Sorry, came over all Python there
Jennifers comments made me think surreal comedy was appropriate here 
Actually Simon,
Austin ran from debate on another thread. A few more intellectually honest posters filled in though and we’re having or had a good debate. What he does is he writes a trash piece on someone and then, instead of debating the issue when challenged, insists that he knows more than they do (faith in the Divine Austin) and then twists their words to say that they agree with him on this. What he won’t do is debate the facts that led him to write the column, unless he thinks he can win. Don’t get me wrong, I like the guy (in spite of the trash piece he wrote on me and now on this principal), but logical debate isn’t his forte. Spin is - though he will drag you into an interesting “debate” on why he won’t debate you.
I also have friends that are gay, I think most people do and very many social conservatives feel empathy for their plight. But a)a general tolerance club is more effective and it can take hard stances against bullying each time it happens. If a Black student gets bullied, they can stand up strong against them. If a gay student gets bullied, they can do the same, etc. It’s much more effective. What I am against is any club that promotes teen sex. And I have yet to find anyone who’s truly benefited in the long run from sex without commitment or who makes sex their primary concern. And today, it’s like candy to diabetics.
Actually, you have yet to explain why debating you would be a worthwhile use of time, despite being asked this many, many times.
Translation: I see no value in debating a person on the subject of atheism when they know so little about atheism that they give outrageously false definitions of it.
A plight largely created and maintained by conservatives.
So why not eliminate clubs that exist specifically for black or Latino students? I don’t see you arguing against them, just against clubs that have gay students in mind.
You’ve claimed that the gay/straight alliance clubs do this, but haven’t supported this allegation.
Austin,
You’re being funny, but we’re being redundant. You took an article of mine that had precious little to do about Atheism and used that as a pretext to say I don’t know about atheism. Then you took a line to mean that Darwinian scientists had invented atheism, which was not the intent any rational reader would come up with. Then you said that I “admitted” to knowing nothing about atheism from a quote in which I essentially said “you’re saying I know nothing about atheism as an excuse not to debate.”
If you think anyone’s falling for your games or don’t recognize them for what they are then you’re mistaken. These are the same games someone used on here to portray Jennifer as a liar, for supposedly saying two different things that she never said.
Now, about the subject at hand, social conservatives are not responsible for the plight of gays. In fact, we’re generally more empathetic (some are, some aren’t, but generally most know not to hold person animus against someone who does something we believe to be wrong, just like we don’t bash those who engage in premarital sex). I grew up in Montreal (which I’d rather deny) where anti-gay sentiment was very bold and bordered on the obscene. But it’s hardly a conservative city (at the time I was probably the only kid in 200 miles who liked Reagan), and it wasn’t conservatives trashing gays. Those who beat up or torment gays aren’t conservatives, they’re your run of the mill thugs.
Now about the club, I said that most such clubs do promote sexual activity. I don’t think that statement is rocket science. I also said that this was probably the case with this club, though I wasn’t sure. This was based not so much on probability (the fact that most are) but because this principal said so and the facts show that he is an incredibly decent man (he didn’t speak out against gays, he quit while taking care to point out that his problem was with straight members as well - taking care not to make this a gay thing, he didn’t start a war in the school about the club, etc.). Based on that we can deduce that what he said about the club is probably true. As it happens, the nature of the club was confirmed by an employee of the school.
Now, a Latino and/or Black club wouldn’t promote sex. If they were, they’d certainly be closed down a lot faster than a gay/straight alliance would, where encouragement of sex is treated as something expected. Regardless, all would be better served if the main focus of all these clubs was tolerance and standing up to bullies.
It’s not a reason to devote a blog post to trashing this principal, who actually took care not to harm gays and who does seem empathetic to them.
Every time you say this, I ask you why the main topic of your essay is relevant to pointing out your ignorance of atheism. You never answer. Why? I don’t think you can. There’s no connection between the premise and the conclusion, but you keep linking them as if the mere repetition could suffice to provide cover for the fact that I pointed out egregious errors which you won’t defend or retract. You can’t defend clear falsehoods, but you can’t bring yourself to admit error; instead, all you have is bluster and poor attempts to divert attention away from what you’ve written.
If you don’t want to be redundant, then don’t keep bringing people’s attention back to your own personal ignorance about subjects you write on.
You said that scientists had come up with atheism. You have provided no reason to interpret the line in any other way.
It’s not a “game” to keep point out your ignorance, your errors, and your continual refusal to answer basic questions about what you assert. Indeed, you can’t even stop yourself from asserting the same unsupported claims in places where they are off-topic. It’s becoming almost a compulsion.
If that “plight” involves bigotry, prejudice, discrimination, etc., feel free to demonstrate how.
So, physical assault is all you recognize as the plight of gays?
OK, it’s not rocket science — but it’s also an assertion you refuse to support.
That’s not the reason you gave for recommending a general, all-purpose “tolerance” and “anti-bullying” club. If your only argument against a gay/straight alliance group is the claim that they promote sexual activity, you’re definitely going to have to come up with strong empirical proof that this is what they do.
And that’s another assertion you’ll have to prove. Provide clear empirical evidence that it is “expected” for a gay/straight alliance to “encourage sex.”
I’d say that defending anti-gay bigotry is harm. But then again, you don’t seem to perceive any harm to gays outside of physical assaults.
Austin, Your contentions about my knowledge of atheism or lack thereof just involved spin. You take one sentence in a piece that almost nothing to do with atheism and spin it. Specifically, the sentence you brought up “scientists come up with [liberal concept a], atheism, [liberal concept c]” wasn’t understood by anyone other than you to be a historical referrence to the origins of these principles, it was understood as it was intended, to list the doctrines that liberals and liberal scientists promote. It wasn’t a piece on the history of atheism, starting out “In the beginning Austin was created along with the heaven and earth, and behold! There was atheism,” which is almost the impression I get from your reading of it. The one substantive I make in the column against atheism, made briefly and in passing, is something you’ve refused to touch. And if you want to write columns about people you should at least debate them on the issues.
As it turns out, others have agreed to debate on that thread and on the small amount we’ve been able to discuss of the existence of a conscious Creator, they’re not able to refute the logical points.
They realize that and are spending most of the time on debating evolution instead (despite arguments that even if one believes in evolution, a conscious Creator would be even more needed - a library of sensible books don’t write themselves, not with one great ink spill and not by starting out as dots and growing in and of themselves to form intelligently designed half letters, then letters and eventually paragraphs and book sets, similarly the billions of interdependent factors needed for existence don’t just make themselves). But even in the debate on just evolution, they’re coming up very short.
About the nature of this particular gay/straight alliance, we have the words of the principal and an employee of the school. Of other high school ones, at a minimum most are groups that openly espouse belief in teen sex. That discussions are often sexually charged and straight students who join have similar discussions is generally pretty clear. I’m not going to run a study on which Latino groups discuss Cico De Mayo, Christian groups discuss Easter on Jewish groups discuss Passover. But moreover, all of the anti-discrimination and acceptance of every individual messages that need to be promoted can be done so more effectively with general tolerance, student unity and anti-bullying clubs. If gays are targeted, the anti-bullying/tolerance message can focus on acceptance of them as individuals, without all the stuff that actually serves to sidetrack from this goal.
And no, prejudice, etc. aren’t the only issues gay students have to contend with. But the personal animus that bigots in society have toward them personally isn’t the result of social conservatives or even mostly found among social-conservatives. There are a lot of “centrists” or apoliticals, irreligious who are vehemently anti-gay. Religious people are taught to disagree strongly with the behavior but to respect the individual. This isn’t true across the board, but it is true of this principal and of many, if not most religious people.
Any time the notion strikes you, you’re more than welcome to support this oft-repeated accusation.
In other words, we have more unsupported accusations about what people assume a group will end up doing at some unspecified time in the future. That’s not “support,” that’s just an admission that you have no evidence to back up your claims.
If you ever get in the mood to say something substantive, feel free to provide clear empirical evidence of the truth of this claim.
Prove it.
Oh? Social conservatism isn’t a force for anti-gay animus?
Except that sexual orientation isn’t a behavior, so this “teaching” isn’t actually one which prevents bigotry. On the contrary, it only encourages it by promoting falsehoods about peoples.
Rather like your false definition of atheism.
Yomin Postelnik says: These are the same games someone used on here to portray Jennifer as a liar, for supposedly saying two different things that she never said.
There you go again! Making claims and accusations you don’t support. Why don’t you prove it?
Yomin Postelnik says: I grew up in Montreal (which I’d rather deny) where anti-gay sentiment was very bold and bordered on the obscene.
And there you go again!
Yomin, I’m confused. Where’s the spin. You defined atheism as “belief that millions of species, each miraculously possessing a male and female type to ensure propagation and a world with all the right components for life, just happened to appear out of thin air”?
I challenge you to find a worse definition!
The main topic of the article is obviously irrelevant. You offered the definition. Defend it or admit that it is indefensible.
Simon,
Part of the spin is that the article didn’t seek to define “atheism” rather to point out the inherent illogic in it. Read the debate thread. If it were an article of atheism it would discuss how all other claims of gradual build-up of the world essentially lead to the same impossibility, that a complex universe arose without a conscious Creator, out of “thin-air” so to speak, only over time. And that’s why portraying a passing remark as a “definition” of atheism is spin. But of course, that much should be obvious to any thinking person.
Other spin was with regard to a comment about what some liberal scientists propagate (which is all that anyone would have taken it to mean in the context it was written). The comment was portrayed as a historical accounting of the origins of atheism.
At one point a poster took a post where I was saying that he “says that I can’t define atheism” to mean that “I can’t define atheism.” That spin was the most absurd.
All this seems more geared at avoiding the issue, debating whether there’s logical and empirical evidence for the existence of a conscious Creator who created all details of the universe. I can understand the fear in addressing it, but a desire for truth should be paramount. I can also guarantee you that religion “expands the parameters” of knowledge as President Reagan once aptly put it and also has a beneficial impact on life. If you discover it through logic and real open-mindedness, you’ll appreciate it. And you can stay liberal. Many believing people are.
mobathome,
If you don’t see how you twisted and turned Jennifer’s comments then you don’t need citations. You need a reading tutor. Just read what she said, and then what you said. If you think that your twisting her words and calling her a liar is fooling anyone other than yourself, you’re wrong.
Austin,
There were a number of times I pointed out exactly how you took my words way out of context. But I digress.
I’m also not going to conduct a study on the activities of various clubs to prove stuff that’s as clear as day.
But I will answer your points of substance. Social conservatism discourages homosexual relations, but it also promotes respect for the individual. Religion demands differentiating between a “sinful act” and the one committing it, except when it’s misused. We don’t beat up and scorn atheists and no one should do that to someone just because they happen to be gay. If you look at who the thugs are who do, you’ll see that they have no political or religious leanings. They don’t care about social or religious issues on any side. They’re generally thugs. No sure, some misuse religion to harm and insult others, but not as much as others use anything popular or dogmas to harm others. But that’s a whole other debate.
Regarding behaviors, I was referring to the act. I care about the genetic vs early psychological argument. There’s strong psychological evidence to show that in at least many cases it’s the latter, but all that religion cares about is the act and the overall purpose of sexual activity (to strengthen marriage as well as to procreate). The “need” to fulfill every sexual desire isn’t healthy on any level and that’s just as true of people with “traditional” orientations. Likewise, anyone can develop an attraction and a healthy marital relationship with the person who they are with. But that doesn’t give anyone the right or the desire to ostracize or discriminate against those who don’t conform to or who rejects those religious ideals and doing so is the opposite of religious and is a sin as well.
Typo - I meant, I DON’T care about the genetic vs psych argument.
So, it’s OK to present an outrageously false definition of atheism if your essay’s purpose isn’t to define atheism? How is it “spin” to point out the errors in your definition of atheism when defining atheism isn’t the purpose of the article? This is a very simple question which should be easy to answer, but while I’ve asked some form of it many times, you’ve always refused to even address it; instead, you just repeat the claim over and over.
In order to point out something “illogical” that is “inherent” in atheism, first you’d actually have to have an accurate description of what atheism is. You didn’t, and instead only demonstrated the illogic inherent in your twisted understanding of atheism.
You made no claims about what “some liberal scientists propagate.” You instead made an unambiguous and unqualified statement about “scientists” generally. At best, you simply didn’t express yourself accurately — but that excuse has been lost to you because you’ve had plenty of opportunity to admit to poor wording and have instead chosen to attack those who simply take your words at face value.
That’s only “the issue” in your mind. It’s a sign of gross egotism for you to assume that whatever is “the issue” to you must also be “the issue” to everyone else and, therefore, anyone not focused on “the issue” must have something wrong with them. Instead, you might want to try to get into the habit of recognizing that other people have other interests, priorities, and lives which don’t revolve around you and your agenda.
You don’t have to — although such evidence would perhaps be ideal, I wouldn’t presume to claim that it’s the only way to acquire empirical evidence that would support your empirical claims.
However, key here is the need for you to have empirical evidence for your empirical claims. You can’t brush it off by asserting that the truth of your claims are “clear as day.” If they are so clear to you, it can only be on the basis of clear empirical evidence — and that’s the evidence you have to provide.
The simply choice here is that either you have the evidence or you don’t. If you do, you should provide it; if you don’t, then you never should have made the claim in the first place and now really should retract it.
To be quite honest, I do not think you have ever had any empirical evidence for this. I frankly think that you have only ever been assuming that your claims are true on the basis of your ideology — specifically, your ideological categories and premises. You’re assuming that others behave and act in certain ways because your ideology demands it; at no point does it seem to have occurred to you to go out and check to see if your ideological assumptions actually match reality. It is “clear as day” that gay/straight alliance groups promote sexual activity, so why bother actually lifting the blinds to see if the sun really is out or not?
Feel free to explain how that’s possible here.
Well, if others don’t accept what you claim is “sinful,” then you aren’t respecting their individuality.
Ah, an empirical claims. Do you have support for this one, or is this just another case of you making assumptions about others based on your ideological categories and premises?
I know you were. This isn’t about the argument between genetic or psychological origins of homosexuality. The problem is, sexual orientation isn’t an act but merely being gay is what causes so many people to suffer prejudice and discrimination. I’ve never heard of anyone asking a gay person if they are sexually active before harming them while leaving all the celibate gays alone. Have you?
Yomin:
>Part of the spin is that the article didn’t seek to define “atheism” rather to point out the inherent illogic in it.
Did your definition seek to define atheism? If not, what was its purpose?
How can you point out the inherent illogic of something you have failed to define? Why should anyone take such an attempt seriously?
>If it were an article of atheism…
You just said the article sought “to point out the inherent illogic if (atheism)”.
>…it would discuss how all other claims of gradual build-up of the world essentially lead to the same impossibility, that a complex universe arose without a conscious Creator, out of “thin-air” so to speak, only over time.
Why? That’s not atheism either.
>portraying a passing remark as a “definition” of atheism is spin.
Your article states:
“…atheism, a belief that millions of species, each miraculously possessing a male and female type to ensure propagation and a world with all the right components for life, just happened to appear out of thin air”.
How is this not a definition?
>Other spin was with regard to a comment about what some liberal scientists propagate (which is all that anyone would have taken it to mean in the context it was written).
What is a liberal scientist anyway?
>The comment was portrayed as a historical accounting of the origins of atheism.
You stated:
“First it was the “scientist” who came up with atheism”
What else could this mean? Even if “scientist” means “some liberal scientists”?
Out of context? Austin quoted the entire paragraph, and the one before and after it. He also, as he always does, linked to the original article.
>I can understand the fear in addressing it
Please explain it to us.
>I can also guarantee you that religion “expands the parameters” of knowledge
I’d prefer you prove it.
Yomin Postelnik says: If you don’t see how you twisted and turned Jennifer’s comments then you don’t need citations. You need a reading tutor.
There you go again! First, you make an unsupported accusation, and when you’re asked to support it, you not only repeat your accusation but also toss in an ad hominen. Is it because you just can’t support what you claim?
Austin,
Again, I wasn’t “defining” atheism in that column. I was making quick reference to one aspect of it, and yes, when you boil down to it, atheism believes that the world came about through no conscious effort. “Out of thin air” is an expression and you can see from the debate on that thread why attributing it to random interactions of gases, then molecules, etc. is logically unattainable. The fact that I wasn’t defining atheism was plain to anyone who read the column. Your seeking to portray it as otherwise is a distortion. By the way, this was only one such distortion.
Regarding the group that’s the subject of this thread. True social conservatives show respect and compassion for the individual, whether we agree or disagree with their flaws. I have no idea whether Eddie Walker is a political conservative, moderate or mostly liberal (though I would venture to guess, based on probability). Regardless, every indication points to him showing such respect and compassion.
And you’re right that it’s not the act that motivates bigots and thugs. But that’s one thing that differentiates them from social conservatives. The obstacles faced by gays aren’t mainly the result of social conservatives. They’d fair well among true social conservatives, even though they disagree with the behavior. Social conservatives are very against having a relationship with a lady who’s going through a separation. But we don’t harm or discriminate against those who do engage in same, we have acceptance of the individual and disagree with the act.
Simon,
I told you I wasn’t defining atheism as was patently obvious to anyone who read the column. Your question of whether my “definition sought to define atheism” is therefore absurd. The contention that one must first define a philosophy before pointing out its inherent flaw is also ridiculous. Accordingly, one could not say that racists have a rigid and dogmatic view unsupported by logic without first spending time going into a whole definition of racism. One could not point to the flaws of communism without lauching into a preamble about its history. Your premise is wholly illogical. It seems that all you’re trying to do is spin. Otherwise, you’re definitely not looking at, or not understanding, what’s being said.
Look at MOBATHOME, who seeks evidence that he’s falsely accusing someone of lying, the false nature of which is obvious to anyone who read that poster’s remarks and his distortion of them. It seems that these games and tactics are the hallmark of most of the posters on your side, with the noted exceptions of Paul and Samuel (and Austin on issues other than atheism). One must ask why these games are played. Is it as an attempt to avoid honest discussion?
You gave a definition of atheism in that column. Defining atheism wasn’t the column’s purpose, but it contained your definition of atheism — an outrageously and inexcusably false definition of atheism, too.
Ultimately, the original purpose, intent, or topic of the column isn’t relevant. All that’s relevant is whether the definition given for atheism is accurate, understandably mistaken in some respect, or so completely lacking in credibility as to justify disputing the writer’s comprehension of what they are saying. You’re statement about what atheism is falls into that third category.
Atheism, not being a person or sentient creature, doesn’t “believe” anything.
No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Except that atheism isn’t a philosophy.
Is Yomen Postelnik serious with this:
“On this issue, the principal quit out of personal beliefs about groups that were openly encouraging sexual activity. Note that part of his concern was straights meeting straights in a forum that encourages premarital sex, which is against the approved curriculum.”
Yomen says he’s from Montreal. As a Canadian, I am well aware that in Canada it would be highly unlikely, and probably unconstitutional, to attempt to use school cirricula to stifle, prevent, or demonise teen sex. In Canada, like almost all of the civilised world, education about sexuality in high schools is aimed at providing knowledge to give teens choices on birth control, which enables them to (hopefully) reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexual diseases. Teens are told about the emotional aspects of sexuality; they are specifically NOT given the religious-based “abstinence” crap that US teens (alone in the “west”) are subjected to.
I can only conclude from Yomen’s remarks that he has moved to the United States. I’m not American, so I’m asking: is this true? I know the US is way behind on religion and social issues, but do American high schools actually think that by pretending that teen-aged sex doesn’t exist they are going to eradicate it? Is attempting to prevent teen sex ACTUALLY part of the “cirriculum” in US high schools? I’m sorry to say this, but talk about making a citizen embarrassed about his countrymen! I mean, I know that US fundamentalist Christians think this way, but is this actually the policy of American school boards? Is this actually the view of moderately religious Americans?
Un-effin-believable.
Yomin Postelnik says: Look at MOBATHOME, who seeks evidence that he’s falsely accusing someone of lying, the false nature of which is obvious to anyone who read that poster’s remarks and his distortion of them.
Three strikes! You’re out!!! Three times, you wrote the same accusation without ever attempting to support it. I had hoped that with something as simple as this topic, when all of the statements are right here at hand, you would have actually engaged the material and tried to make an argument. But all you’ve done is repeat yourself, and toss ad hominems. You’re very disappointing, you know.
Yomin:
The fact that you think something is “patently obvious” does not make it so. What you wrote certainly reads like a definition. If it was merely, in your mind, a “quick reference to one aspect of (atheism)” then you’re even further off the mark. I’m sure you believe you understand what atheism is, but you clearly don’t. This is probably why you think comments here by myself and others are spin.
Atheism is: not believing in any gods. No more, no less. That’s it.
It is not a philosophy. There is no “belief” aspect.
>The contention that one must first define a philosophy before pointing out its inherent flaw is also ridiculous.
I wouldn’t say it is ridiculous, but obviously it is not always necessary to offer definitions. It depends on one’s expected audience and what one could reasonably expect them to know about the subject at hand. Atheism is notoriously misunderstood and so should be defined unless you’re sure your intended audience understands it.
An article claiming to point out the inherent flaws of atheism should at the very least demonstrate an understanding of what atheism is. You clearly failed to do this. Every comment you’ve added further demonstrates your ignorance on the subject.
If I were to write “Racism, the belief that the man in the moon wears spectacles”, in an article claiming to point out the inherent flaws in racism, racist and non racist alike would be right in dismissing my arguments. And I couldn’t escape this fact by later saying that I was merely pointing out one aspect of racism. It would be clear I did not understand the concept and to claim it was spin for people point this out, now that would be ridiculous!
Simon,
The column contained no false statements about atheism. The statement that disbelief in a conscious creator and that the universe just made itself is a conclusion of atheism. It’s not, however, the definition of atheism. One doesn’t need to define something to list its blatant flaws.
Your arguments don’t deal with any of the points addressed and are poor spins.
Furthermore, it didn’t set out to prove anything. It was written for an audience that’s experienced all the assumptions laid out. You liberals have proven them. The attack thread on Eddie Walker is only one example.
Mobathome thinks his cartoonish distortions warrant a proof gathering mission and serious debate…interesting….and pathetic.
Yomin Postelnik says: Mobathome thinks his cartoonish distortions warrant a proof gathering mission and serious debate…interesting….and pathetic.
You still can’t argue.
In the “Yomin Postelnik: Why Some Liberals Unresponsive to Falsehoods, Illogic'’ comments, someone said:
But why discuss any of the issues and come up short when you can just hurl accusations?
Wait! That was you! Were you talking about you?
Get well soon!
Austin,
Honestly, are you proud of these clowns?
I’m not aware that “pride” was something that I should or should not feel in relation to anything posted here by anyone. I wouldn’t feel “pride” over someone posting a prize-winning essay in a comment any more than I feel ashamed at all the comments you post in which you repeat the same assertions while refusing to support any of them.
Yomin,
I think you are really dense. But that’s not what I want to comment on. I was born in Montreal 63 years ago. I live in Montreal now. (I didn’t between 1874-1985) and I have to say that it is the one of the most gay-positive cities in the world. It is known for that. Yes, until the Quiet Revolution in the 60s it was heavily Roman Catholic and that might explain an anti-gay attitude, But since then Montreal and Quebec are very gay positive.
Abstinence only policy?
Why not teach the controversy and explain all theories of sex. Give the student the information and let them decide.
Wait a minute, where have I heard that before?
It is sad, but amusing that the bigot fails to see or understand their own bigotry.
I find it odd to the extreme that theists forget their own atheism of belief in gods other than their own.
Theism is like trying to observe the real world through a painted over window. As you scrape away the paint and glimpse reality, some cherry pick theism. When you realize it is total bull, you just open the damn window and get an unobstructed view of reality. ( Atheism)
Atheism = blank page
Anti theism = No written on blank page
theism = flowery wishful yes written on same blank page
Indicate the level from 1 to 10 (1 = least 10 = most) probability of existence.
Zeus _______
Thor _______
Athena _______
FSM _______
Alla _______
jebus _______
Total _______
If your score is greater than 6 immediately seek professional psychiatric care.
I find it interesting that so many of you are demanding “empirical proof” yet ignoring it when it is given.
Eddie Walker is not a biggot. How do I know (proof)
1. I have worked with him for 4 years. I have personally seen the compassion with which he deals with all students. He gave everything of himself to gang members, pregnant teens, etc.
2. Read any of the State newspaper blogs. Even the teacher who proposed the GSA at Irmo came to his defense when he was being accused of bigotry.
But, I suppose you feel better qualified to judge a man that you have never met based on your interpretation of his resignation letter.
So, Austin and others, provide me with “empirical proof” that Eddie Walker is a biggot.
Provide me with “empirical proof” tht there is not a single chapter of the GSA out there that does not condone or legitimize teen sex. Please understand, while I feel that it does legitimze teen sex I personaly do not have a problem with the groups existence. I was simply trying to argue the fact that this is the issue for Eddie, NOT the fact that is a club for primarilly gay students.
Please excuse the typos. I have a young daughter and I don’t always have time to proof before I send.
How, exactly, is the above incompatible with being bigoted towards gays?
It’s bigoted to treat gays as being less deserving or worthy of a system of support than girls, blacks, etc.
I didn’t make any claims about any GSA chapters. You did, and when you did you assumed a moral and intellectual obligation to support it.
Oh? You feel it? Before you were certain about it. Did something change?
The problem is, unless you can demonstrate the proof of these claims about GSA groups, then that most certainly CANNOT be “the issue” — it is, instead, an invented issue that serves to distract attention from the real reasons for one’s opposition to treating gay students as equally deserving of the same treatment accorded others.
So this is why it is so important for you to be able to prove your claims. If you cannot, then you in effect destroy any case there might be for Eddie Walker not being a bigot.
I’m sorry, I am certain that they do. I have already told you that I have spoken with students about the club. They do talk about their sexual partners, They do talk about safe sex. While these are good things, it does legitimize the action. I cannot provide you with the names, Numbers, addresses of these students with which I have spoken as it would be a violation of their rights under FERPA so I don’t know how much more proof you want. And no, your statement about gays being less deserving is not “empirical proof” Eddie makes it very clear that this is about any student gay or straight engaging in sexual activity.
Please answer my question. Do you feel more qualified to judge this man, whom you have never met, than people who know him and have seen him interact with his students? Let me reiterate. Even the teacher who proposed the GSA at Irmo posted a comment on the State newspapers website defending him against these charges of bigotry.
Jennifer says: I have already told you that I have spoken with students about the club. They do talk about their sexual partners, They do talk about safe sex.
You’ve spoken to GSA club members? How is that since the school’s list of student organizations does not mention a GSA club.
Also Austin, If you cannot prove that these clubs NEVER condone or legitimize teen sex, than you cannot prove that this is a distraction or cover for the gay issue. You are making assumptions about the true nature of Eddie’s decsion.
I don’t work at Irmo. I already told you that I worked with him while he was diector of the Alternative Academy. I have since moved out of South Carolina.
I just don’t know why you find it so hard to believe that his decision was based on the teen sex issue, not the gay issue. Call him whatever you want to in regards to his position on that issue, but please don’t accuse him of being something that he is not based on a misinterpretation of his letter.
Well, presumably there is evidence which justifies this “certainty.” Presumably, you have a good reason to assume that the GSA at Walker’s school would definitely have promoted sexual activity. I’d love to hear it.
1. Is this every different from what teens sometimes talk about anyway?
2. It’s up to you to demonstrate how such discussions actually do what you claim they do. You can’t just list things you’ve heard that they discuss and pretend that that’s enough.
Except that unless the group is specifically encouraging sexual activity, then that isn’t a reason — it’s just an excuse to cover for bigotry.
As I tried to point out, his being nice in other circumstances is not evidence that he doesn’t harbor anti-gay bigotry. The presence of such bigotry can be deduced from actions, even if you haven’t met the person. If Eddie Walker was photographed wearing a white robe at a KKK rally, I’d have no problem deducing that he’s racist regardless of whether I met him or not.
The simple fact is that certain actions, decisions, and statements tell us things about a person’s character and attitudes. It is not the case that you can only come to legitimate conclusions about people after knowing them; indeed, it can be the case that not knowing a person can lead to better evaluations simply because there exists distance and less emotional involvement in the outcome.
It’s not up to me to prove some claim that I haven’t made. You seem to have forgotten what I just specifically stated: I haven’t made any claims about GSA clubs. You have. This means that the burden of proof lies solely with you; it’s up to you to prove that you are right, not for me to prove that you are wrong.
I’m only concluding that if the stated reason is false, then it must be a falsehood created to cover for something that would look bad if stated openly. If you can think of options other than bigotry, I’ll concede that bigotry is indeed not the only real possibility and therefore that Eddie Walker might not be bigoted.
So, you have two tasks: first to demonstrate that the GSA clubs really to promote sexual activity (which would arguably be a non-bigoted reason for opposing the club) and/or come up with a reason other than bigotry for giving a false reason for opposing the club.
Because the people who claim that the decision was based on teen sex can provide absolutely no evidence that there is any issue with teen sex — or to be more explicit, there is no evidence that GSA clubs specifically promote teen sex.
I don’t believe that there is any misinterpretation here. Either there is a reasonable basis for thinking that GSA groups promote teen sex or there is not. If there is not, then the claims that they do promote teen sex are knowingly false; anyone who offers knowingly false reasons for some action must be doing so in order to cover up some other reason which looks bad. In this case, the only such reason that I can think of is anti-gay bigotry. I’ll grant that I’m not so perfect that I can always think of every possible or even likely option, but I’m going to have to stick with what I have unless and until you can provide some realistic alternatives.
Jennifer says: I don’t work at Irmo. I already told you that I worked with him while he was diector of the Alternative Academy. I have since moved out of South Carolina.
So you’ve only talked to your school’s students? Does your school have an abstinence-only sex education policy?
Jennifer
Also, would you please tell me at how many other schools have you asked your questions of its GSA’s students, and what answers did you get? Were all of these schools in your district?
I have not conducted any type of extensive survey on GSA. I only know that kids are allowed to discuss sexual activity. I never claimed that they promote sexual activity. There is a big difference between legitimizing it and promoting it. If it happens at one school the possibility exists that it could happen at another, maybe Irmo. This is the basis for Eddie’s concern. It is possible that he has me fooled. It is possible that this is a cover up. Austin, can you admit that there is a possibility, no matter how small, that this is truly about sex in general and not specifically about gay sex?
And how, exactly, is this a problem? Is this different from what they discuss outside the group?
Only if you can demonstrate that there was clear evidence that the group would promote sexual activity. If there was no such evidence, there was no legitimate reason to disapprove of it.
Jennifer,
Unfortunately some here are of the guilty until proven innocent mentality. You should see some of the accusations Austin threw at me on his hit piece dedicated to that. Any thinking person accepts your comments and sees what he’s trying to do. Mobathome contention that there’s no such club at Irmo would have me laughing were it not so sad. But these are the feeble minds you’re dealing with here. What’s really sad is that Eddie Walker deserves better. No one should be falsely accused of bigotry. But unfortunately some people are so bigoted against conservatives that they’ll accuse them of anything and nothing you can say will change their bigoted minds. Keep posting though, as anyone who hasn’t yet undergone a frontal lobotomy sees them and their tactics for what they are.
There you go again! Yomin Postelnik, slinging a bunch of accusations and attacks you don’t ever try to support.
Get well soon!
Pearl,
My profound apologies for dissing your home town. I guess the truth hurts and I’m sorry for having exposed it. Either that or all the incidents I know of and general attitudes up to the early 90s, none of which were religiously induced were figments of my imagination. Thank you so much for setting me straight on this issue as we work toward a strong and independent Republic of Quebec, the main goal of this thread and indeed of life itself.
Jennifer,
Btw, before answering mobathome, realize that he’s either some deranged person who’s on the board 24/7 or Austin just trying to be obnoxious.
Yomin Postelnik says: before answering mobathome, realize that he’s either some deranged person who’s on the board 24/7 or Austin just trying to be obnoxious.
More insults instead of substance. You just don’t have it in you, do you?
Get well soon!
You mean, the people who think that GSA groups are guilty of promoting sexual activity until it is proven otherwisse?
Nope, I mean a compassionate principal with a lifetime of dedication and fairness to all students being accused of “choosing bigotry over his job.”
But, of course, you knew that…..
I was going to comment on this whole posting, but it looks like a few people taking pot shots at each other have taken up to much space as it is and NOTHING got answered.
Drew
“I’m not American, so I’m asking: is this true? I know the US is way behind on religion and social issues, but do American high schools actually think that by pretending that teen-aged sex doesn’t exist they are going to eradicate it? Is attempting to prevent teen sex ACTUALLY part of the “cirriculum” in US high schools?”
“I’m sorry to say this, but talk about making a citizen embarrassed about his countrymen!” “I mean, I know that US fundamentalist Christians think this way, but is this actually the policy of American school boards?”
“Is this actually the view of moderately religious Americans?”
Unfortunetly Drew, the answer to all these questions is YES!
Unlike people in other countries, most people here are scared to H*** of their own bodies and sex and most of that fear stems from RELIGON!
RELIGON in this country drives 99% of everything people do and say here and it is in control of government here weather they admit it or not!
As far as I am concerned, you are VERY LUCKY to live in a country where RELIGON DOES NOT CONTROL YOUR LIFE LIKE IT DOES HERE! America was SUPPOSED to be like yours is now at one time and it has taken about 75 to 80 years worth of steps BACKWARDS and I do not think it will stop until we hit the Dark Ages again!
I am an “Intersexed” person (Born both Female and Male) and because of RELIGON and a KKK father, I was forced to be male until I could repair the damage he and his KKK and his church did to me!
I reversed everything he did and am now all woman and because I did what I did, I have caught (Still do catch.) H*** from “Good Christian” people that wanted me “DEAD” because I am who I am.
The Christian faith here IS TOTALLY BONKERS and if I could get a Passport fast, I would be moving to Canada and letting these Christian fools knock each other off and get it over with.
Thank The Mother for your country Drew and Be Well.
Lady Royce
So, you object to it being pointed out that it’s bigoted to treat gays as if they are undeserving of equality, but you don’t mind if the GAS if accused of promoting sexual activity in the absence of any evidence that they do.
Yes, I did. I just wanted to see you make it clear.
Austin, i don’t know why you are so hung up on the use of he word “promoting” Oh wait, yes I do. It is because it is the only arguement that you have left, but one that is completely irrelevent. Eddie never used the word “promote” in his explanation for his decision. He said that he feels that it implies sexual activity. And again, he was clear to point out that he was not taking issue solely with gay sex. I have clearly indicated that there is at least one school that has a GSA club that justifies Eddie’s concerns. I should also mention, that based on what I know of Eddie Walker, he would have no problem saying that he disagrees with homosexuality. If that were the issue I believe that he would just say it. He is not the kind of man who would make up a false pretense to cover the real issue. I can’t prove that, but I really do believe that to be true. Austin can you please answer my question pertaining to the remote possibility that this may not be about homosexuality?
Thanks Yomin
You’re more than welcome! All Austin does is attack. He never cites proofs yet demands that all others do as a deflective tactic so that his outrageous behavior and accusations are lost in the entire picture. His assertions of bigotry are outrageous. Let’s ask him to find empirical proof to them. After all, I guesss he also worked with this kind man for 4 years. It’s amazing that about.com tolerates his trashing of individuals as opposed to ideas, but what else can one expect on an atheism form, a philosophy that is wholly illogical and was exposed as same on the trash thread against me.
——————————
To the posters who are against abstinence education:
Study after study has shown that not only are teens who are taught abstinence more likely to be active in social/community causes, expressive and possess a greater sense of self, they’re also happier. Protection is taught, but the stress is that all methods of protection are unreliable. The best have a 10% flaw rate. If a teen engages in sexual activity 10 times, they run a statistically great risk. That danger, by contrast, is often not stressed in non-abstinence classes. Neither is the emotional ruin that sex can cause and that sexually active teens are generally less happy and statistically more prone to serious depression.
Of course, Austin will ask for empirical proof of this while offering none of his own for his baseless accusations. But you guys are better than that and should just do a simple google search. The studies are widely available and we’re not babies who need everything linked to.
Well, there you go. “Implying” sexual activity isn’t contrary to any mission of public schools and isn’t a legitimate reason for denying gays equality.
I notice that neither you nor he explain what is meant by “implying” or what is wrong with it. That’s telling.
I did, and I can do so again: unless there is something wrong with “implying” sexual activity, then this is clearly about homosexuality.
Oh please! Don’t tell me that you are one of those Clintonites who wants to know what the definition of “is” is. Yes, it is telling that I would assume that you know what the definition of imply is, but here you go: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
im·ply Audio Help /ɪmˈplaɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-plahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -plied, -ply·ing. 1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.
4. Obsolete. to enfold.
You are so intent on nit picking to prove this man a liar that you continue to lose site of the big picture. He believes that this club suggests that kids will be having sex. Do other GSA clubs openly discuss sexual activity? Yes. Is there then the chance that members of the Irmo GSA will discuss sexual activity? Yes. Does this violate the abstinece based ed. program at Irmo? yes. What don’t you get?
The only person who knows with absolute certainty wether he is a bigot or not is Eddie himself. So yes, an absolute truth exists, but we as outsiders are left to ourselves to examine the evidence and draw our own conclusions. I asked that we end this conversation by agreeing to disagree. This is not a 2+2 = 4 situation. Wether you like it or not we are argueing our opinions for the only person who really knows the truth is Eddie. If you are too arrogant to see that and admit that, than I am truly sorry.
I can not prove that Irmo’s GSA would allow these conversations and you can’t prove that they would not. And yes, you do need to prove that if you want to justify calling Eddie a liar. You would have to prove that he knew with 100% certainty that such conversations would not take place. So can we please respec each others opinions and end this conversation maturely by agreeing to disagree?
——————————————————————————–
[Origin: 1325–75; ME implien, emplien
I do indeed know what the definition is, but I couldn’t be sure how you were using it. Part of the problem is that “imply” usually has more accompanying words which you did not include. Do you mean that the group implies sexual activity exists, is good, is common, should be safer, or what?
I notice that after giving a definition of imply, you don’t specify which sense you had in mind and what, precisely, you meant.
In what way can the club “suggest” that kid will be having sex — does it merely suggest that sexual activity is occurring, or does it suggest that sexual activity should be occurring? The former isn’t contrary to any school’s mission, not even in the context of an abstinence-only program, and so is an excuse rather than a legitimate reason to oppose the group. The latter might be contrary to a school’s mission, but it has to be demonstrated that there is a good reason to believe that it is true before it can become a legitimate reason for opposing the club and not just a cover for something else.
Feel free to demonstrate how that last “yes” is true.
Then, once you’ve managed that, please explain why all the rest of the school clubs and events aren’t eliminated simply because there is a “chance” that students and members will discuss sexual activity. Because if your contention is true that there was no bigotry against gays here, then you’ll have to show that there was a legitimate reason to ban a group for gays on the mere chance that sexual activity might be discussed (and we’re assuming there that that’s even a legitimate reason for banning any group) but not all the other groups on the same basis.
Or are you suggesting that the “chance” for discussing sexual activity only exists when gays gather, and that such a “chance” doesn’t exist when heterosexuals gather?
Really? Does this mean that you deny my KKK example as a case where an outsider who doesn’t know the person in question can reliably conclude that someone is a racist?
Well, let’s go back to the original context where I said that and we’ll see. I was responding to where you said you had “made a strong case” but I “just fail to see or recognize it.” What was this “case”? It appears that it was for your claim that a GSA club “legitimizes” sex. And how did you make your “strong case”? Speaking with students from one GSA club. That’s it. Sorry, but that’s nowhere even close to a “strong case” and it’s certainly not a point on which one can legitimately “agree to disagree.”
Conversations about sexual activity cannot be contrary to school policy, otherwise the mere possibility that conversations about sexual activity could take place would be a reason to ban all clubs and all gatherings of students. Can you prove with 100% certainty that no conversations about sexual activity occur during prom? Of course not. I think we all know that some occur — but I don’t see anyone trying to ban prom on that basis. Funny how large groups of heterosexual dates are permited while small groups of gays and straights can’t meet to discuss issues like bullying.
I agree that we disagree. I cannot, however, agree that you have provided any sound or rational reasons for your position. On the contrary, when asked to support your claims you consistently fail to do so. I do not respect the opinion that groups designed to provide support for gay students can legitimately be banned on the theory that there is a “chance” that sex might be discussed, but all sorts of groups and activities involving heterosexual students can proceed without anyone even bringing up the “chance” that sex might be discussed. Anti-gay animus is being demonstrated by the very fact that gay students are being held to one standard which others are not and that certain assumptions are being made about gay students which are not made about others.
And, just for the record, it has to be pointed out that absolutely no secular rationales for any of that can be offered. It’s all faith-based bigotry towards gays, nothing more.
I guess the answer to my request that you repect my opinion about Eddie as I respect yours is no. And with that I must conclude that this conversation is no longer a valuble use of my time. I am sure that you will respond with some flashy rhetoric and that is fine. Take care.
The fact that you don’t consider supporting your assertion to be a valuable use of your time is precisely why I can’t respect your opinion. I can have some respect even for a false opinion if a person puts in sincere effort to support it and make sure it is reasonable. However, when all sorts of flaws are demonstrated and a person makes no effort to address them, the possibility for respect simply evaporates.
FYI, when it comes to opinions respect has to be earned. No opinion, no idea, and no proposition has any claim to any amount of automatic respect (like humans can claim to deserve at least a basic level of respect). A person can earn respect for their opinions by providing empirical support, by providing soundly reasoned and valid arguments, by answering direct questions, by addressing flaws and errors when having them pointed out, etc. All of these are reasons to respect an opinion at least a little bit, even if the opinion is in error.
So if you have to ask that an opinion be respected, then you probably haven’t been doing what is necessary to earn respect for that opinion.
I don’t feel that this has been a waste of my time because you have helped demonstrate the ways in which anti-gay animus lurk behind neutral-sounding rhetoric about protecting students. Your last posts about how GSA groups would “imply” sexual activity simply because of a “chance” that sex might be discussed were excellent. You revealed, quite unambiguously, how gay students and their supporters are treated differently from all other students because you revealed how ostensibly neutral standards are in fact not the least be neutral at all.
Thank you.
Shorter Jennifer: “Agree with me, Austin, or it’s over between us!”
That letter should be read into the minutes of the club’s first meeting (if they keep minutes).
As someone who is watching this situation from South Carolina and who is involved in it also, I really have a hard time believing Jennifer’s claim about talking to the students who are members of the club. Futhermore, her claim about the person who allegedly defended Walker is also incorrect.
Let me throw some truth into this. The club has not begun yet. For a few years, students were trying to start the club. Walker stalled them. He gave them the runaround. It was only when the students got a lawyer and complained did the district tell Walker that he could not keep the club from forming.
Please keep that in mind the next time someone rumininates about how Walker is “fair.” He abused his office as principal in violation of the law to keep students from starting the club. And when finally told that he had no other recourse but to allow it, he sends out a public letter incorrectly calling the GSA a sex club and then sits back and tries to claim that he just wants to be fair.
And Jennifer, to answer your question about GSAs and sexual behavior - consider this: NO COURT has ever said that GSAs lead to sex. In court case after court case, students have consistently WON the right to form GSAs I think THAT speaks for itself.
McEwen,
Your claims aren’t in line with the original story. You also seem to be very emotionally involved, which is fine. This is an emotional issue. But I’d be skeptical of your version of events because of that. Is there anywhere we can get a complete version from an unbiased source? Even Austin, who’s been kicking the guy to the curb for the last 2 weeks doesn’t claim what you do.
well the original story does not have many details that someone who is in the region does. and I am in the region. but feel free to see this because it does give an entire story of the situation. - http://www.scpronet.com/wordpress/2008/06/02/guest-column-offers-voice-of-reason-in-gsa-debate/#more-680
amccewen, Please do your homework before you accuse someone of being a liar. In an article titled “Irmo High Principal Set to Resign Over Club” published in The State newspaper on May 22nd, Gloria Talcove, the club’s sponsor, is qouted as saying ” I have a wonderful principal” “I think the world of him”. You can choose not to believe me about the club at my school if want. I find it ridiculous that you think that a publication with such a liberal bias actually gives ” the entire story” Yomin, you are right these people are in a world all their own. For Austin to suggest that I have not tried to support my claim is simply laughable. What does he think I have been doing for the last ten days? And then for weemaryanne to suggest that I am trying to force someone to agree with me when what i said was that I respect his right not to agree with me and asked for the same consideration is mindboggling. I had no intention to continue this discussion, but felt it necessary to defend myself against accusations of being a liar.
From this editorial column in The State, you can read actual facts about Eddie Walker’s behavior that reveal his true character:
Few seem to realize that students at Irmo High School tried to form an alliance for more than six years. Few know that the principal fought the formation of this group for years, in violation of the federal Equal Access Act. He buried paperwork. He did not inform district officials. He told students they could form the group only if they went directly to the school board.
He put such restrictions on them that he effectively made the group’s existence impossible. Only when a student, unconditionally accepted by his parents, had the strength to involve outside help did things change. Mr. Walker’s actions repeatedly violated federal law.
If Principal Walker had resigned effective immediately or if he had quietly resigned outside of the media spotlight, we could at least give him credit for the courage to stand up for his convictions, however misguided and damaging we think they are. But he publicly stated his opposition to the group, without giving notice to the district or the school board. He didn’t leave immediately, but gave a one-year notice.
I say you have been dancing around the issue and flatly refusing to directly address numerous questions that have been put to you.
Jennifer says: I find it ridiculous that you think that a publication with such a liberal bias actually gives ” the entire story”
The article a. mcewen referenced is a copy of an editorial column first published at The State, a newspaper from which you quote. The full story apparently does include many actions by Walker since he became principal of Irmo in 2005 that may reveal his character:
Few seem to realize that students at Irmo High School tried to form an alliance for more than six years. Few know that the principal fought the formation of this group for years, in violation of the federal Equal Access Act. He buried paperwork. He did not inform district officials. He told students they could form the group only if they went directly to the school board.
He put such restrictions on them that he effectively made the group’s existence impossible. Only when a student, unconditionally accepted by his parents, had the strength to involve outside help did things change. Mr. Walker’s actions repeatedly violated federal law.
‘Study after study has shown that not only are teens who are taught abstinence more likely to be active in social/community causes, expressive and possess a greater sense of self, they’re also happier.’
And who carried out these studies, exactly? The same crackpots who ‘found’ that you get a girl pregnant just by masturbating her?
‘Protection is taught, but the stress is that all methods of protection are unreliable. The best have a 10% flaw rate.’
Actually, the condom is 99% effective against pregnancy and diseases.
I believe that one only has to look at Africa (southern Africa in particular) to see just how effective George Bush’s abstinence program and the conformance with religious traditions by Africans has been in combatting AIDS. Has it alleviated the crisis in the slightest degree? Urmmm, no. On the contrary, the killer disease is more rampant than ever, and the abstinence program has not even remotely helped matters!
Face it, the only real way out of Africa’s HIV crisis is high-quality education about contraception, which in turn requires alleviation of poverty. Such education will eventually help Africans break out of the destructive habits of following pointless religious traditions.
I like potatoes!