Court victory for teacher silenced for transgender-book criticism

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Well, you are basically asking for the system we have now but run by people who share your values.  The people in charge now reject speakers that don't accept the stated values of the board.  You don't want a different system, just different people with different values.  Fair enough but how do you think you are going to replace an entire system ?  It's not so simple right ?

2. I'm only asking you to take a systemic look at it.  Any authority is going to use a framework to instill values that they have.  They will have a process that ostensibly strives for objectivity, balance etc.  The system in place now claims to be that.  You don't believe it.  So as far as I can see you have you vs. them.  And I don't see how you would be able to put a system in place that's much different.

I would rather discuss these things at a systemic level at this point.

Actually the issue for the Catholic boards is trustees who don’t support Catholic doctrine.  That’s the heart of the matter. I’m quite sure the voters didn’t know that’s what they were getting and wouldn’t support such positions more often than not.  It’s really about the question of whether a system that proclaims Catholicity and leans on the Constitution to justify itself is in fact following Catholic doctrine.  If it is not, then it shouldn’t wear the badge.

The public system must answer to the question of whether its policies reflect the constituents whose children attend, and if the justification is “human rights”, the questions must be asked, “Whose human rights?” and “How are competing rights being reconciled reasonably fairly through policy?”  Who agreed to Pride flags in every classroom and foyer?  Was the question put to a vote? Did the trustees tell voters what they would support at election time?

Edited December 3, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok.  Well at least you are principled.  I can't imagine that happening though.

Of course you can't - you're not a supporter of free speech, you're far on the left.  (i know, i know...) 

Quote

2. I would like to silence all-caps for sure.  Your assessment that "I don't like them" is a guess at best.

A - stop making me repeat myself and B - no, it's observation. You frequently talk about silencing people you don't like, "chuds" etc should not be allowed to talk etc etc,  and anyone who doesn't agree with your views tends to fall into that category.  So call it the balance of probabilities based on past experience  

 

Quote

3. I would bet that among conservatives there would be a good chunk unwilling to let NAMBLA speak at a school board meeting.

I would bet that most would agree that either we let all people talk or we don't and they might cancel you.  Most would be angry such a group even wished to address the teachers and such and they might hate them a great deal but you look at some of the nutbars who've been allowed to speak at conservative conventions and such and it's not so hard to believe. They might need a moment's calming down but in the end most would get it.

The more tricky part would be holding them back from jumping them as they left the building after they exercise their right to speak and knee-capping them, but i'm sure with a little logic, a little reason,  a little rope......

 

Quote

5. Lots of so-called conservatives love cancelling. DeSantis, for example.

Where did that happen specifically?

 

Quote

But I appreciate your argument.  Thanks for the discussion.

You're welcome, thanks for yours as well, enjoy what's left of the weekend.

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Actually the issue for the Catholic boards is trustees who don’t support Catholic doctrine.  

2. That’s the heart of the matter. I’m quite sure the voters didn’t know that’s what they were getting and wouldn’t support such positions more often than not.  It’s really about the question of whether a system that proclaims Catholicity and leans on the Constitution to justify itself is in fact following Catholic doctrine.  If it is not, then it shouldn’t wear the badge.

3. The public system must answer to the question of whether its policies reflect the constituents whose children attend, and if the justification is “human rights”, the questions must be asked, “Whose human rights?” and “How are competing rights being reconciled reasonably fairly through policy?”  Who agreed to Pride flags in every classroom and foyer?  Was the question put to a vote? Did the trustees tell voters what they would support at election time?

1. Yes, but subjectively.  Even within the Church there is disagreement as to what "Catholic" means with regards to LGBTQ right ?  A dear old teacher of mine, devoutly Catholic and gay, had his life partner acknowledged by the priest at the funeral.  It was regarded by those in attendance as an act of mercy and kindness.
2. I get it - but change within the church does happen, even in a popular way and at the expense of Catholic doctrine.  I'm thinking about Vasectomies, Divorces and Big Macs on Fridays... things that were alien to us growing up.
3. They *might* put such a thing to a vote.  Votes on such things are few and far between, mostly because:

 - Votes don't happen on matters of detail
 - Accommodation of LGBTQ people is decided at higher levels, ie. board policy and ultimately the constitution
 - You would likely get a vote if those in power stood to gain from it, reinforce their status etc.  

Your example of a public board would likely not result in a change in policy, IMO.  You are looking to do what's "right" according to your values, but thinking that your view is also "popular".  I'm not sure it is.  Even an elected Catholic Board only voted 6-4 against hoising a Pride flag at an education centre (not a classroom).  Also the Classroom thing would have to be mandated and would be a messy affair, legally.   Again, I am thinking systemically here because to change the system you have to have a large number of people supporting the idea.

[Zeitgeist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes, but subjectively.  Even within the Church there is disagreement as to what "Catholic" means with regards to LGBTQ right ?  A dear old teacher of mine, devoutly Catholic and gay, had his life partner acknowledged by the priest at the funeral.  It was regarded by those in attendance as an act of mercy and kindness.
2. I get it - but change within the church does happen, even in a popular way and at the expense of Catholic doctrine.  I'm thinking about Vasectomies, Divorces and Big Macs on Fridays... things that were alien to us growing up.
3. They *might* put such a thing to a vote.  Votes on such things are few and far between, mostly because:

 - Votes don't happen on matters of detail
 - Accommodation of LGBTQ people is decided at higher levels, ie. board policy and ultimately the constitution
 - You would likely get a vote if those in power stood to gain from it, reinforce their status etc.  

Your example of a public board would likely not result in a change in policy, IMO.  You are looking to do what's "right" according to your values, but thinking that your view is also "popular".  I'm not sure it is.  Even an elected Catholic Board only voted 6-4 against hoising a Pride flag at an education centre (not a classroom).  Also the Classroom thing would have to be mandated and would be a messy affair, legally.   Again, I am thinking systemically here because to change the system you have to have a large number of people supporting the idea.

Actually all GAP policy is voted on at board meetings, and this process must be public and transparent.

While I think you’re correct that personal foibles and secular values/trends are constant threats to doctrine that historically have crept in from time to time, these warps have also been recanted and corrected by subsequent popes.  There have been schismatic popes.

Basically you are saying that much doctrine is changing and changeable in the modern Catholic Church.  I would say that’s a very novel idea that was certainly not the case until very recently, under Pope Francis.  Highly respected and reverent clerics see this and are being doxed for calling it out.

You’re missing much here that I don’t have time to address.  One can acknowledge how someone lives without condoning it or judging the person. A man can love a man and a woman can love a woman, but even under Francis the conditions around such relationships are that they are non-sexual because such sexual behaviour is sinful and cannot be blessed. At least that was the case until this fall, and that’s the reason for the major upheaval in the Church.

The great heresy that appears to be perpetrated in many “Catholic” boards is the conflation of love of the sinner with affirmation of the sin.  You should know this, which is just one reason why your comments are off the mark. This isn’t about me or my opinion. This is doctrine that is continually reaffirmed at the top, or was until Francis recently began saying things that are ambiguous or unclear, perhaps intentionally. Now he has an out of control reformation underway in Germany and major opposition on his hands, especially from America, but even parts of Africa, Europe, and Asia.  I don’t know how this plays out, and I’d like to believe unity, clarity, and restoration will return.  I’m honestly not sure at this point.

There’s much more to the story than feel-good EDI banality.  Bishops are literally losing their livelihoods over this for what appears to be the assertion of doctrine. Many Catholics don’t have the time to consider or the knowledge of what’s unfolding, which is why parables about the evil of misleading the flock are being referenced.  Again, big topic on which much more can be said, so if you actually care, I’m sure you’re bright enough to do your own research. Those are religious matters.

Much can be debated on this thread without reference to religion.  However, when it’s a Catholic board, you can’t ignore how Catholicity factors into the issue.  

Edited December 3, 2023 by Zeitgeist

[blackbird]

On 12/2/2023 at 6:21 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Actually the issue for the Catholic boards is trustees who don’t support Catholic doctrine.

I understand what you're saying about trustees that are not supporting Catholic doctrine.  I can understand how that would be a problem for the Catholic church, particularly for those Catholics who hold to traditional Catholic teaching.  They would feel a sense of despair and being cheated out of what they believed the Catholic school was supposed to be standing for.

As to how to worship God and how Catholic theology fits in with the Bible and Biblical truth and how it compares with Protestant understanding of the Bible, there is an extremely good book you may consider.  It is called Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boettner.  It is available for free to read online at the archive.org website.  It says in part of the introduction:

quote

The basic features of Protestant belief therefore are:

The supremacy of the Bible in all matters of faith and practice.

Justification by faith, not by works, although works have their necessary and logical place as the fruits and proof of true faith.

The right of the individual to go directly to God in prayer apart from the mediation of any priest or other human intermediary.

Individual freedom of conscience and worship, within the authority of the Bible.

For more than a thousand years before the Reformation the popes had controlled Europe and had said that there was only one way to worship God. That period is appropriately known as the “Dark Ages.” In the church and, to a considerable extent, in the state, too, the priests held the power. They suppressed the laity until practically all their rights were taken away. They constantly pried into private affairs, interfering even between husband and wife and between parents and children by means of the confessional. All marriage was in their hands. They interfered in the administration of public affairs, in the proceedings of the courts, and in the disposition of estates. The revenues of the state built new churches and paid the salaries of the priests in much the same manner as in present day Spain. Anyone who dared resist ran the risk of losing his job, his property, and even his life. Life under such tyranny was intolerable. From that condition the Reformation brought deliverance.   unquote

Roman Catholicism : Loraine Boettner : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

I was very pleased to come across the archive.org website because they have many books that would otherwise be very expensive to purchase, but you may read them for free or a donation to the website.

I just add that the book was copyright in 1962 and therefore I am not sure if the situation in Spain is the same today.  The relationship between the Catholic church and the Spanish government may have changed in some ways in the last sixty or so years.  I don't know.

Just an added note.  I just read that Spain has become secular to some degree, but the Catholic church still has an enormous power and influence in the government, legal system, etc.  

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by blackbird

[I am Groot]

On 12/1/2023 at 3:33 AM, DUI_Offender said:

You seriously think "Playboy magazine" is on par with today's hardcore pornography, where they have double anal penetration, and a girl having sex with 20 different guys, in every hole?

I would have killed when I was a kid to get hold of the kind of internet porn that's so freely available now. The best I could do was skim the Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler at the newsstand at the nearby corner store. I sent away for a video once but it got seized at the border. I was deathly afraid they'd call my parents but they just sent the one notice which I happily grabbed in the mail.

Kids today have it so easy.

On 12/1/2023 at 7:44 AM, Nationalist said:

Don't procreate please.

There was nothing incorrect about what they said...

[I am Groot]

On 12/1/2023 at 1:49 PM, DUI_Offender said:

This happened to me as a child. I was not allowed to watch old reruns of Three's Company, but if I was at my friends house, they had no problem letting us view the sitcom, so I watched it there.

What in heck did they think was wrong with Three's Company?

[NAME REMOVED]

2 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

What in heck did they think was wrong with Three's Company?

This was back in the 80s, and in comparison to today, it's obviously tame. There was a time when a man having two female roommates, who were neither family members or significant others, were considered taboo, and most landlords would not accept this.  

This is why Jack Tripper pretended to be gay. Since that was the only way they would be approved to rent the suite.  Believe it or not, I was not the only one who was not allowed to watch the program, as many parents in the day thought it was too "adult" for children.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 

Basically you are saying that much doctrine is changing and changeable in the modern Catholic Church.  I would say that’s a very novel idea that was certainly not the case until very recently, under Pope Francis.  

I confess, heh heh, that I don't know the difference between Doctrine and Practice.  I can say with confidence that practice has changed immeasurably since I was young.  I was alive for the 2nd council and the attendant changes followed by a long list of smaller changes.

[I am Groot]

20 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

This was back in the 80s, and in comparison to today, it's obviously tame. There was a time when a man having two female roommates, who were neither family members or significant others, were considered taboo, and most landlords would not accept this.  

This is why Jack Tripper pretended to be gay. Since that was the only way they would be approved to rent the suite.  Believe it or not, I was not the only one who was not allowed to watch the program, as many parents in the day thought it was too "adult" for children.

That's frankly kind of weird since this was an American sitcom and the most risque things they did during this time period was to allow the sound of a toilet on All in the Family and show a married couple sitting up fully clothed in the same double bed instead of twins.

Jack might as well have been gay for all the interest he had in those girls. Which I always found preposterous.  And the girls were ridiculously virginal in their behavior given their ages. 

Edit. I'm now remembering he did make a few suggestive eye-waggling, wink-wink, nudge-nudge suggestions to them which were immediately laughed off. At least in the early episodes.

Edited December 3, 2023 by I am Groot

[NAME REMOVED]

28 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

I would have killed when I was a kid to get hold of the kind of internet porn that's so freely available now. The best I could do was skim the Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler at the newsstand at the nearby corner store. I sent away for a video once but it got seized at the border. I was deathly afraid they'd call my parents but they just sent the one notice which I happily grabbed in the mail.

Kids today have it so easy.

 

LOL..

Yeah I can still remember at 12, finding the key to my Dad's locked chest, as I knew he had a couple of Penthouse magazines. I later discovered a couple of old blank VHS tapes, and out of curiosity, decided to pop it into the VHS machine, and of course, it was a porno.  

 

Needless to say, I was a popular guy, having access to a couple of my Dad's porn movies, when he was away at work, to show my neighbourhood friends. 

[Guest]

Just now, I am Groot said:

Jack might as well have been gay for all the interest he had in those girls. Which I always found preposterous.  And the girls were ridiculously virginal in their behavior given their ages. 

Yeah, but they only had to put on that front for half an hour a week.  What do you think they up to for the rest of the time?

 

[I am Groot]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, but they only had to put on that front for half an hour a week.  What do you think they up to for the rest of the time?

I never had much interest in those girls, to be honest. Now Christina Applegate's Kelly Bundy character in Married with Children definitely had me thinking sinful things.

MWC was the perfect show to ussher the world from the 80s into the 90s.

Edited December 3, 2023 by I am Groot

[NAME REMOVED]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, but they only had to put on that front for half an hour a week.  What do you think they up to for the rest of the time?

 

Jack and Larry tag-teaming Chrissy.

 

Hard to believe they are all dead.

Edited December 3, 2023 by DUI_Offender

[Guest]

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

Jack and Larry tag-teaming Christine.

Suzanne Somers once gave my dad a lovely smile, as he was getting out of the passenger side of my car in Vancouver.  She was getting out of the same door of the car in front.

Being a visiting Brit he'd never heard of her, of course.

[I am Groot]

1 minute ago, DUI_Offender said:

Jack and Larry tag-teaming Chrissy.

Hard to believe they are all dead.

I just had a strange thought(not unusual for me). I was about to say "Hey, how about the girls on Charley's Angels and what they were doing in their trailer together?" or something like that. But then I never had such thoughts back then. Not about them together, I mean. In that time we (the friends/people I hung with) never really thought about lesbians. Today, any two hot girls who briefly hug each other has guys thinking along those lines. Society has changed a lot in that regard, I think. And I think porn has had a lot of influence there.  

 

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

LOL..

Yeah I can still remember at 12, finding the key to my Dad's locked chest, as I knew he had a couple of Penthouse magazines. I later discovered a couple of old blank VHS tapes, and out of curiosity, decided to pop it into the VHS machine, and of course, it was a porno.  

Needless to say, I was a popular guy, having access to a couple of my Dad's porn movies, when he was away at work, to show my neighbourhood friends. 

I was about the same age in the early 70's when a friend's parents opened Lovecraft which I believe was Toronto's first adult sex-store. My Dad did some of their early graphic designing for advertising. They used to have us move boxes of stock around the storeroom on occasion. There was no porn but enough other stuff to get us into trouble.  I'll never forget the time we opened a couple of boxes containing dildoes and fake vaginas - of course we started sticking one into the other laughing our heads off just when my buddy's mom walked in.  Better than the cops walking in I suppose. They got raided a couple of times.

[WestCanMan]

On 12/2/2023 at 1:53 AM, DUI_Offender said:

Well the Nazis also banned books when they came to power, declaring them "pornographic" so this is no unprecedented in history.

That's proof that when people ban books from elementary schools they're Nazis. You're soooo s.m.r.t.

Quote

BTW, you may want to find a more reliable source than "The Daily Signal" which is pretty much a borderline Nazi site in itself. 

By the way, you might want to just stop spewing CNN gospel and then acting like other news sources don't meet your lofty standards ?

Quote

How mature, Skippy.

All that you had to do was acknowledge that drag queen story hour is real for some reason, and that leftards are huge supporters of it for some reason.

Quote

lol...I'm always amazed about the absolutely batshit insane conspiracy theories that people will believe. 

lol...I'm even more amazed that you're taking about that from within the cult. 

[Zeitgeist]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I confess, heh heh, that I don't know the difference between Doctrine and Practice.  I can say with confidence that practice has changed immeasurably since I was young.  I was alive for the 2nd council and the attendant changes followed by a long list of smaller changes.

Fair enough.  The changes in Vatican 2 were mostly around the use of the local language in masses instead of Latin, priest facing the congregation instead of the tabernacle, etc.  It did pose problems with translations that arguably didn’t capture the original meaning.  There was also a watering down of some obligations for church attendance, dietary restrictions, and so forth.  On doctrine there were no essential changes.  At least that was how modernization of the Church was defended.  The very recent proposed and vaguely implemented changes are doctrinal in nature or at least muddy the waters of what constitutes teachings in areas of sexuality and sexual identity. The problem for Catholics and Catholic institutions in this context is that the lack of clarity makes the acceptance of what is considered sinful likely: active euthanasia, adultery, denial of natural identity such as biological gender, sex outside of marriage, etc.  How can Catholic educators do their jobs in this context?  I know this is irrelevant to many non-Catholics, but when the ideals of morality are no longer taught and are abrogated without regret or sorrow, conditions are set for very real social problems.  When we know that broken families cause all sorts of ills for kids, for example, this kind of mixed messaging is very unhelpful.  Anyway, subjects for other threads.  

[CdnFox]

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Quote

The above is a lot different than when you said;

 

No, those are the same thing entirely. What is different about them?

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

Everyone gets at least one opportunity to speak,

There you go.  You're learning   the rest of that paragraph was basically useless filler.  Everyone should have the same right to speak as everyone else.

Quote

You have issues with following well-established processes. 

Why must you always lie to try to make a point?

She had the floor - she was speaking, they STOPPED HER FROM SPEAKING and threw her out.  They violated her rights. And then they defamed her.

Trying to pretend that my problem is somehow with the "process" is beyond ignorant. Don't be a tool. If you can't argue my ACTUAL points there's no point in bringing up fake ones you made up.

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No, those are the same thing entirely. What is different about them?

The 2nd thing you said is backpedaling. That would mean you lied.

Quote

If you can't argue my ACTUAL points there's no point in bringing up fake ones you made up.

That's what I did, argued against points you emphasized with big capital letters, i.e. You DO have to let them into EVERY discussion.

There's nothing fake about your intent to establish that these points mean absolutely what they say otherwise it would mean you're lying. You capitalize the word ABSOLUTELY often enough in your posts link link link that it's clear capitalizing words, especially like ABSOLUTELY must mean something .

Now I expect you to backpedal again and snort that you're just using figures of speech to make your points but if anyone else said that to you they could expect the mother of all hissy fits replete with at least 10 references to lying and as many smilies to boot. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The 2nd thing you said is backpedaling. That would mean you lied.

The second thing i said is identical to the first thing i said.  Which actually means you lied

I notice you can't explain why they're different as i asked.

Quote

That's what I did, argued against points you emphasized with big capital letters, i.e. You DO have to let them into EVERY discussion.

you didn't argue that point at all. 

They have to be given the same right to speak as everyone else. You haven't suggested why that shoudln't be true. And they DEFINATELY shoudln't be thrown out and have their rights violated as was the case here

Quote

There's nothing fake about your intent to establish that these points mean absolutely what they say otherwise it would mean you're lying. 

That doesn't even make any sense.  We have a deal - you're not supposed to break down mentally until at least late afternoon. Get it together.

 

Quote

You capitalize the word ABSOLUTELY often enough in your posts link link link that it's clear capitalizing words, especially like ABSOLUTELY must mean something .

It ABSOLUTELY does.  It ABSOLUTELY means that you ABSOLUTELY let them have their say the same as you would anyone else.  ABSOLUTELY.

OF course - as a  left win advocate of trudeau and his cancel culture naturally you would find this difficult to understand.

Quote

Now I expect you to backpedal again and snort that you're just using figures of speech to make your points but if anyone else said that to you they could expect the mother of all hissy fits replete with at least 10 references to lying and as many smilies to boot. 

There's no figure of speech here  -  you DO NOT exclude people just because you don't like what they have to say. You Let them have their say same as everyone else.

I swear to god you get dumber every single day.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I notice you can't explain why they're different as i asked.

This,

Assuming it's related to the schools you let them speak and share whatever they want to.  Then you consider it and in their case probably point out what they want is illegal and also oh hell no and thank you very much and F*ck off -  but you listen to them first and then you make that determination. 

indicates your understanding that that they get one chance to make their case.

and this,

You DO have to let them into EVERY discussion a public group like the school board has.

indicates you think they get to make their case in EVERY discussion. Not just one IOW.

You're usually the pedantic one, I'm just throwing it back in your face.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

you DO NOT exclude people just because you don't like what they have to say. You Let them have their say same as everyone else.

EVERY time or just ONCE?

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

This,

Assuming it's related to the schools you let them speak and share whatever they want to.  Then you consider it and in their case probably point out what they want is illegal and also oh hell no and thank you very much and F*ck off -  but you listen to them first and then you make that determination. 

indicates your understanding that that they get one chance to make their case.

No - it doesn't.  It says they get their right to speak. Show me where it says 'speak once'.  they get to speak same as anyone else does.  And then you CONSIDER it. 

 

Quote

 

and this,

You DO have to let them into EVERY discussion a public group like the school board has.

indicates you think they get to make their case in EVERY discussion. Not just one IOW.

They do.  That does not mean they get to talk whenever they feel like but it does mean that in every discussion along with everyone else they get to have their input. 

Quote

You're usually the pedantic one, I'm just throwing it back in your face.

So what you're saying is you were trying to be clever .... and failed   ROFLMAO!!!!!!

Kid - you're stupid enough when you're not TRYING to be stupid.  Putting effort into looking stupid doesn't make you look less stupid

If it makes you feel better Justin would have agreed with you that they shouldn't be allowed to speak