David Virtue wrote:

"In early May, Kate and I met with [Lucy] Nazro (the school's headmistress) to voice our initial protest of SAS's participation in the National Day of Silence (NDS). [NOTE to readers. NDS is a national youth-run effort using silence to protest the actual silencing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people due to harassment, bias and abuse ...] Why would SAS recognize the National Day of Silence, yet not recognize the National Day of Prayer? The NDS brought the short story "Brokeback Mountain" into the discourse. Why would a school that promotes a Christian education environment in its mission statement, and lists moral behavior as one of its core values, have such a story in its senior English literature class, past, present or future? Why would SAS promote classroom discussion on pornographic material concerning deviant behavior? An apparent agenda at the Upper School is developing that is detrimental to SAS's future. Along with pleading that we not publicize the issues, Nazro promised to look into the facts of the situation. Nazro had not read the story, and did not seem very flustered following her brief review of it in the meeting. She noted that she had not had any other parents express concerns. And, Nazro had only received positive feedback from students about how they all cherish the environment that (the English teacher) creates in the classroom that allows such warm and open discussion."

If someone actually finds a way to silence the LGBT crowd, please let me know. It seems that "the love that dare not speak its name" is now the love that won't shut-up.

The homosexual and lesbian community is desparate to get its deviant message into the school systems of America - even down to the the kindergarten level (see story about Massachusetts). The ECUSA is a revisionist organization that has decided to celebrate homosexuality at any and all cost. It should be no surprise that an Episcopal school would be pushing the GLAAD message along with other perversions. I would hope that the parents would protest this abuse of power by the Madam Nazro. Possibly the best outcome here would be the creation of another school with more Christian values in competition with St. Andrews the Deviant (SAD). I suspect that such competition would eventually cause SAD to disappear.

It is nice to see the light of truth shined on this situation. The revisionists would love to prevent such disclosures because they all know that it shows the ugliness of deviancy and perversion.

Hoo boy, this will be fun! This article oughta get the neo-cons and homophobes riled up. It's like shooting a hive full of bees with a .22. I'm gonna pop some popcorn and watch the show.

It's more child abuse from ECUSA.

Flee with your children.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"Last year's Upper School play contained adultery between a father and his children's female babysitter as entertainment. This year's play has a happily divorced couple, who continue to live together, discussing the man's desire for an experimental gay affair, to which he proclaims, "Don't knock it 'till you've tried it!" These main characters are drunks, do drugs, and spew forth the virtues of such an altered life..."

---

There're goin' to be lots of millstones handed out.

Essodalori

Support from parents and donors are given on the premise that SAS will deliver what it promises.

Come on people it is an ECUSA institution! You expected some honesty from them? At least the McNairs will not be throwing more good money after bad.

By the way, only limp wristed weenies would use a .22, real men use .44s. No freudian analysis its only a joke.

John+

"Say, podna, yuh like pictures of nekkid cattle - do ya? Well, lemme show yuh some pictures of a cupla priests here on Brokeback Mountain. You shore gotta pretty mouth, son..."

Well, at least they didn't call it "Humpback Mountain."

Diasy, the walking-sideways-while-escaping Wonderdog

It depends; a .22 is often used with a silencer. Kills the a**hole one shoots in the back of the head just as dead as with a .44.

Just a joke, of course.

The breakdown with this concerns two worldviews which are worlds apart. If you visit the school's web site and click on the "Morals and Values" page, you will see that under "Spritual Formation" they claim to develop moral attitudes, or something to that effect. To revisionists and progressives, teaching high school kids that homosexuality is good and right IS a moral value. They believe that they have a moral responsibility to present the homosexual lifestyle as just another way for two people to love each other. As we've seen in other posts, they believe they are obeying God by doing so. They believe they have no choice but to "liberate" gays and lesbians from the oppression and tyranny of a backward, anachronistic, unintelligent, heartless, and self-righteous regime. If you try to suggest to them that what they are doing is wrong and against Christian doctrine and teaching, the only thing that registers in their minds is that you are filled with hate.

This worldview acknowledges that there is another world view which stands in opposition, but that it is weakening and diminishing by the hour. Those who hold this opposing view are actually beneath contempt. But fortunately, the revisionists and progresives believe, those who are filled with hate will soon fade away.

So it's no wonder that an Episcopal High School would think nothing of hosting a play about two gay cowboys. Just wait till you see next year's play!!

frcochran writes:"""By the way, only limp wristed weenies would use a .22, real men use .44s. No freudian analysis its only a joke.""""

Well, a .22 is a ladies gun, so it is only fitting that steve and kurt would recommend it. Me, being in NJ, I would use a 20 ga rifled slug gun with a Winchester Partition Gold Sabot. Expensive at $3.00 a shot, but they do go 1900 ft/sec., much faster than a bee.

Does anyone notice that the homoerotics and the animal rights folks use the same tactics to impress their wants with lies to impressionable young folks, aided and abetted by the teaching establishment?
It is possible that soon there will be groups called the pink and fur shirts ala you know who in the 1930's.

Dear Folk,

The problem with ECUSA IS their weenies!

Politely,
Daisy, the WonderHotdog

Tell that to "Father" whatshisface. Besides, my pussy can kick your mutt's a** any day of the week, redneck.

The CIA and other intelligence agencies use silenced .22s, so I guess we are all girley men to you booger pickers.

In the spirit of humor.

A .22 might be fine for shooting at a bee's nest, but probably not as one reader suggested, for shooting with a suppressor. A .22 is a supersonic round and will make a crack when fired unless pressed right up against the target. There are subsonic .22 rounds available that work well with a supressor but they have even less power.

I think that the average revisionist has far too thick of a skull for a subsonic .22 round to be effective. I believe that just as logic and reason are unable to penetrate the revisionist cranium, so too for the humble .22.

Wow, it didn't take much to bring out the racist in you did it, Kurt?

Nazro later announced to the faculty that the McNairs had pulled their funding due to "debatable issues" but that she still retained the full support of the Board.


In other news, Satan announced today that he has the full support of the dammed.

And it didn't take much to bring out the thug in you, did it, redneck?

When I and my neo-con friends set out to intervene in some Third World country, we usually opt for a suppressed .45 ACP. It is subsonic, and thus silent, and still has enough kick to send the target to be with his seventy virgins.

The Diocese of Texas was a fairly conservative diocese when I was there in the mid-1990s. I am sure that the influence of the Loon Left has gained some footholds in Austin, which will always be known to me as Little California.

This little tiff is a big deal to the mostly conservative texas folks, though. I am sure they will not be silent on this weak attempt to push the hateful, conservativephobic, Loon Left. Wimberly is a fairly conservative guy, but I doubt he will do much.

The militant gays will stop at nothing while pushing their heretical and dangerous doctrines and practices. Thank God for the heroic primates of the Anglican Communion from the global south who will no longer permit the dangerous power abusers in the West to destroy this communion without their protests.

Look, let's try and get back on topic, without insulting each other; okay?

Kurt,

If you look carefully at my picture, you will see that my neck is completely black.

But you should watch your tongue to me and others. After all, I am a bitch. And you are threatening my puppies.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Daisy, the Wonderdog

"And it didn't take much to bring out the thug in you, did it, redneck?"

Love and tolerance the Loon Leftist way...

I'm fine with that.

I'm fine with that.

"Sibling Rivalry"

A charming tale of wit, intrigue and a touch of "naughtiness"! What topsy-turvy times these young buxom kids have when their spin the bottle game takes an interesting turn. The only thing is ... they're all each other's brothers and sisters! Who will get to open the "toy box" first??

Come one, come all to this year's Upper School Play! (Sponsored by NAMBLA)

For those gay cowboys who don't like to use condoms, there is also Bareback Mountain. It really is scandalous that the government isn't doing more about AIDS.

Double Post

I guess "shooting in the back" is the operative phrase...Damascus, I always love all your articulate, sensible, informed comments. Keep writing!!

In Christ,

Philippa

Kurt is rather typical of what happens to manhood up North. Yankees know how to breed sharp tongued ruthless vulgar men who lack cultivation. I would love to see a Southron lady take you out back and cane you until you developed some manners.

... short story about two homosexual male cowboys ...

ROTFL!!! You can't make this stuff up - low comedy - just love those heifers - excuse me - its on a sheep ranch - Love my sheep!!!

This is truly disgusting. I hope they stick to their guns (no pun intended) and without the bucks - what moron decided to do this to our children?

If someone actually finds a way to silence the LGBT crowd, please let me know. It seems that "the love that dare not speak its name" is now the love that won't shut-up.

You certainly got that one right!!

And, a Headmistress - that explains that agenda - warm, touchy, feely getting in touch with that feminine side. Sorry ladies, but that is just the way it is with most women running our schools - boys need MEN to be in charge - real men.

OrthoDuckx:

Hey, lets not be disparaging man-sheep relations. ECUSA and its affiliate organization, the North American Man Sheep Love Association (NAMSLA), take a very dim view of that. God made some people with a natural attraction for our wooly friends, and people didn’t really understand the nature of these relationships when they created rules against getting a little sweet lamb luvvin'. We should be affirming of monogamous life-long man-sheep relationships. Clearly, God is doing a new thing here.

And of course you know why farmers and ranchers wear wellingtons. The sheep's hind legs fit in perfectly.

Have our two cowboys introduced you to their special friend Baaasil?

Hey Orthoduckx...
I remember my Dad telling stories about the school days of his youth. Raised a typical Catholic...7 other brothers and sisters...they attended an old fashioned Parochial School...right smack in the shadow of St. Gregory's Church. Staffed by a platoon of grim faced old nuns dressed in full "battle gear" (pre VaticanII habits) The Head was nicknamed "Mother Mary Joan of Arc" by the kids, as she wielded the strap dexterously. During choir practice, the sister playing the old organ (the kind of pipe organ that had to be manually pumped by a coupl'a boys ) would unleash a torrent of righteous indignation on the two snickering miscreants tucked away in the back who had allowed the organ to run out of wind...on purpose.
So not all women are the warm fuzzy type...on the other hand...there is something downright mysteriously interesting about young habited nuns...

What sort of parents want their teenage boys and girls reading a porno story in school about two cowboys sodomizing each other?

Indeed, I can see one of these 'fathers' sitting down with a teenage guy who's 'dating' his son. "Now, be real good to my son, you hear me? Treat him like you would your own brother..."

Essodalori

No, seriously, folks, two cowboys could benefit from one of Louie Crewe's delightful poems on crotch perfume and butt penetration.

ECUSA and anal cowboys - a match made in hell.

And that's before you bring in the children.

Essodalori

P.S. Losing your soul is always a prelude to losing your mind.

A poem from ECUSA's own Louie Crewe, in honor of cowboys and our nation's high school teenagers:


Don't think
I want to be
a queen
the kind
Lady Di
wants to be,

wouldn't want
every bloke
licking the back
of my picture,

I don't jiggle
next to just
anyone's
balls.

I prefer
to choose
those that
lick,
scratch
or fondle
me.

=============

That's real integrity, folks.

Essodalori

"""
The CIA and other intelligence agencies use silenced .22s, so I guess we are all girley men to you booger pickers.""""

They were forced to use them due to the Clinton budget cuts because .22 ammo is cheaper?

"""
The CIA and other intelligence agencies use silenced .22s, so I guess we are all girley men to you booger pickers.""""

They were forced to use them due to the Clinton budget cuts because .22 ammo is cheaper?

This is so disgraceful I can hardly express my words.
How can an institution call itself Christian and do this? Especially to our youth?

These people s/b ashamed of themselves.
May God have mercy on their souls.
Jesus weeps.
He forgives us for we know not what we have done.
True.
But how much can the lambs suffer?
How can lambs dodge the bullets of ECUSA and others that are lead by a problematic society?

I pray dear Lord, these are our children.
Please protect and keep them.
For their keepers know not what they do.

In His Light.

Next year's play will be "Mary had a Little Lamb" -

no really, CT Sister posts: This is so disgraceful I can hardly express my words.

It truly is disgraceful - and we have allowed this to happen by not speaking up years ago - and even now, if you don't have children in school it is still your responsibility to make sure this garbage doesn't get into our schools.

Teenage boys are confused enough - imagine what this is doing to them - and to the girls -

Talk about gender confusion!!!

What's the matter? ECUSA hasn't got ENOUGH trouble, and they want to cause MORE? The McNairs are right for doing what they did! Every single parent who supports that school financially should immediately yank their kid OUT, stop sending their check, and shut it down!

Chaplain, I know of at least ONE bishop who doesn't tolerate this kind of crap......MINE!!

Matthew 18:6
But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Mark 9:42
And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.

Luke 17:1-2
Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Frthomas, I used to know a "Southron lady" who would've done the same thing......only she'd have used a bullwhip!

To paraphrase the McNair's:

"With no accountability, defiant defense of <the apostate clergy> and no deference to the <"parishioners"> of <the ECUSA>, we must leverage our resources in hopes of a demonstrative change in attitude and conduct <in the ECUSA>. We are not dictating <doctrine> or inventing restrictive demands merely requesting <the ECUSA> follow its Mission and Values."

Bully for the McNair's. Let's all follow their example and close our wallets to starve the ECUSA snake.

Oh, come on, Damascus, you should know that sheep-stuffing is simply another form of pluriform truth--"well, just because it's not true/good for you doesn't mean it's not true/good for me"...

What the school did here is abominable, but, what's WORSE is that more parents DID NOT have a problem with it. Is everyone suffering from ostrich disease, i.e. "head-in-sand"?

The McNair's generosity would be well-served, I think, if they were to donate their money, instead, to AAC or ACN.

Just a thought...

In Christ,

Philippa

Jesus is coming as King!

The thought behind this shirt comes from 1 Thessalonians 4:16.

For the Lord Himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

It speaks of the soon coming return of Jesus. The shirt looks at the contrast between His first and second times here on earth. The first time He came meek and mild, the second time He comes as the King of kings and Lord of lords. The first time He came as a lamb; when He will returns it will be as a lion.



Click for Shirt Evangelism

Mercy!

Since when are white trash southern rednecks "gentlemen"?

"Since when are white trash southern rednecks 'gentlemen'?"

Yet more love and tolerance from the Loon Left.

It is terrible to call homosexuals pejorative names, but it is perfectly OK to use such terms to demean people from the South.

The Loon Left is the new home of intolerance, hatred, and closed-mindedness.

How awful to spend the glorious life that God has given you, trembling in fear. Fear is a terrible and ineffective motivator anyway. And shame on any who would teach that God wants his children to fear him.

===========================
Poster: gregory Posted: 2005/8/31 9:01:01

re: < FEAR GOD T-Shirt >

"And shame on any who would teach that God wants his children to fear him."

---

You are far from the truth, Steve. God loves all, but love always entails anger when goodness is forsaken. That is why God angers (as is shown abundantly in the Bible); that is why Christ (who IS God) angered. That is why loving parents anger when their kids do stupid and bad things. You cannot have true love, without anger. Real Christians are God-loving and God-fearing. The one who does not fear God and His judgment (through Christ) is a fool.

You may not fear God, but you run the definitive risk at death of wishing you had. At that time, you will remember what I just said.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

Gen 42:18 And Joseph said unto them the third day, This do, and live; [for] I fear God:

Exd 18:21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth,

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

Psa 66:16 Come [and] hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul.

Ecc 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

Act 13:16 Then Paul stood up, and beckoning with [his] hand said, Men of Israel, and ye that fear God, give audience.

1Pe 2:17 Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

steve writes;""How awful to spend the glorious life that God has given you, trembling in fear. Fear is a terrible and ineffective motivator anyway. And shame on any who would teach that God wants his children to fear him."""

Obviously this is from someone who has never been shot at. I suggest questioning anyone who was honestly named a hero and they would tell you that fear is a very good motivator. Lack of fear is what causes our children to kill each other, since no responsibility is taken for there is no fear of the consequences. No one who truly loves the Lord fears Him, but one very well should fear what the consequences are when one goes against His commands. Or claims to somehow have the means to state they know otherwise what He means.

Religion 101

To "fear" God in the old English sense of the term "fear" means to believe God, to take God seriously, to take God at His word, to trust God, to respect God, to obey God, to honor God, to humble onesself before God. It's along those lines. NOT fear in the sense of accidently running into a Grizzly bear while on a hike in the mountains.

Although, if you accidently ran into God while on a hike in the mountains you might indeed react with "fear and trembling." Like Charleton Heston.

Thank you, Traktaryan. That was very well said.

Indeed, the Christian's biggest fear is offending the Lord, out of love for Him, and the knowledge of His love for us.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

"To 'fear' God in the old English sense of the term "fear" means to believe God, to take God seriously, to take God at His word, to trust God, to respect God, to obey God, to honor God, to humble onesself before God. It's along those lines. NOT fear in the sense of accidently running into a Grizzly bear while on a hike in the mountains."-- Traktaryan

I think that's the point Father Steve is making. "Trust God" has a different affect on contemporary people than the archaic "fear".

"I think that's the point Father Steve is making. "Trust God" has a different affect on contemporary people than the archaic "fear"."

---

Well, Kurtthomas. You choose to repudiate clear teachings in the Bible and from Christ himself about sexual sin. It's pretty obvious to most that God did not create men to sodomize other men's anuses - and it is not at all difficult to see that that repudiation would anger God. (In the same way, a kid who drives drunk and abuses his body and responsibility and purpose for it would anger any loving real life father.)

You apparently have no fear of judgment for your sins. Even when Christ tells us point blank that most will NOT be saved, and that the consequences of unrepentant sin are hellish.

You are foolish to not so fear. You have one chance, one earthly life given to you by God to become Christ-like. Don't blow it out of your love for deviant copulation. You won't get another chance.

If I were you, I'd be afraid. And I say that out of love. If I didn't try to love you, Kurtthomas, I wouldn't bother saying any of this to you.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

"Since when are white trash southern rednecks "gentlemen"?"

Mr. Thomas,

You have crossed the line--again. There is no place on these boards for this kind of invective. More importantly, there is no place in the Christian faith for it. If you hope to show others that yours is the better way, may I humbly suggest you rethink your strategy because you are anything but inspirational. Remember Whose you are, especially before clicking the Post Comment button in anger.

The archaic meaning has not changed.. God does not change. Meanings don't change.

Jesus said... red letters here :

Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

He is not talking about some soft new age lammiepie trust.. He is talking about a Holy God who will vent his wrath on all who don't fear him.

Ezekiel feared the Lord.. literally!
Isiah feared the Lord.... literally.
Moses feared the Lord.... literally

Any righteousness you may have is simply a rightiousness added to your account. You have not earned any right to feel safe or fearless in the presence of a Holy God. David, a man after Gods own heart knew this and taught his son Soloman that "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"

David trusted the Lord also, David knew the Lord would honor his promises.. Those promises are for Grace to the repentant.. and tribulation to the unrepentant... Though he was redeemed, The sword followed Davids line because of Davids sin.. is that not a thing to fear? There is something in that notion all of us ought to fear.

The name of the Lord is a strong tower.. It is not a couch we get comfy on.

" a 22 is often used with a silencer...kills ..just as dead as with a 44." Poor Kurt you really need to do something about your anger and hostility. Your posts are tedious and becoming even more silly. Please try professional counseling. We do not need to deal with your social misfit problems here. Why do you insist in posting here? You are very unhappy with what you read, why torture yourself? Do you enjoy being miserable? Or is it displaced anger on others for your unhappiness? It is very bad form and manners to inject your venom on others. Childish, trite and very immature at best, boorish and offensive at worst. Get a life, grow up and please learn some manners.

"since when are white trash southern rednecks 'gentlemen'?" Wow! Is this ecusa inclusiveness? Such anger and hostility. What is your problem? Kurt I have seen anger management problems but you are really in the top 10. Don't you have something better to do with your time? Your must have one heck of a pathetic and empty life. If your weren't so vile, unpleasant and hurtful I would feel sorrier for you.

"You have crossed the line--again. There is no place on these boards for this kind of invective. More importantly, there is no place in the Christian faith for it. If you hope to show others that yours is the better way, may I humbly suggest you rethink your strategy because you are anything but inspirational. Remember Whose you are, especially before clicking the Post Comment button in anger."

Since you have only been a member on this site for a few days, I suggest that you shut up for a bit and observe how these people treat those with whom they disagree. I give out as well as take abuse. Some others, like Father Steve, get abused but don't talk back. I'm more than happy to treat posters here like adults if they act like adults.

New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

FEAR

1

A sudden calamity; danger.

2

The painful emotion caused by the sense of impending danger or evil; an instance of this.

A state of alarm or dread.

3

Apprehension or dread of, to do, that, lest. Esp. in for fear (of), in order to avoid the risk (of).

A feeling of mingled dread and reverence towards God or (formerly) any rightful authority.

4

Reason for alarm. Also formerly, something that is to be dreaded.

Ability to inspire fear.

5

Solicitude, anxiety for the safety of a person or thing. Now chiefly in for fear of one’s life, in fear of one’s life.



All suggesting something a little stronger than KT's version...TRULY the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Treat adults like adults- fine then act like one. Your anger and hostility gets in the way of all your posts. Your invective and hostile put downs are tiresome. Why do you post here if not to aggravate and annoy people. I would suggest the shere number of your posts do not indicate constructive discussion. Most of them are ravings and rantings of a very negative nature. Why are you doing this? I really want to know. Touchy aren't we? I think you are funny but not so much as to continue to be subjected to your temper tantrums. Go back and read your posts to see who is over the line. Your raving on the Africian bishops is typical. Have you been to Africa? Are you at all familiar with this country. You claimed to be an expert on who will do what and follow who. You do just go on and on. Sorry if you don't care for my reaction to your posts but it is a free country. The right of you to post is valid as is my right to react.

"Since you have only been a member on this site for a few days, I suggest that you shut up for a bit and observe..."

Inclusiveness and sensitivity...yet again. This time the ire of the Loon Left is just someone new here who noticed how mean-spirited and hateful Kurt's posts are.

As obvious and predictable as Bill Clinton lying about his sex life...

These are the words of Jesus Christ, from the Gospel according to Matthew 10:26-33:

"So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that wil not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will. But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. So every one who aknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Now, I seem to recall an earlier post that said something to the effect that it is shameful for anyone to teach that God is to be feared.

In light of this passage from Matthew, maybe the poster would want to recant? The stakes seem rather high ...

i am a student at st. andrews school.
i understand that gay sex may not be morally right to all of you, but this does not mean that it does not exist.many of the seniors at this school who read this book are 18 years old and are legal adults. they will soon enter the real world, where you as parents cannot shelter them any longer. the reason our school shows us these things is not to "corrupt" us and make us bad people. instead it is to prepare us for life outside our little bubble of school and family. gay sex, homosexuality, alcholism: these things are all real. we are taught to "love our neighbor as ourself," but how can we do this if we do not understand our neighbors around us? jesus did not hate "sinners." instead, he accepted them as human beings and did not judge them. he loved them despite their faults. i suggest you get over your fears and do the same.

student, Welcome to virtueonline.

"how can we do this if we do not understand our neighbors around us?" May i suggest that there is no understanding our neighbors. It is by the Grace of God there i go...

click here and read , you will be blessed.

Do you know that you and your fellow students could raise alot of funds with the T-shirt Evangelism??.

(See my post way up above this)

Please do keep posting and reading, you are welcome and i am joyful you have posted.

Know Christ Know Peace and so much more, gregory

ps Jesus Christ loves us and He hates the sinful behavior.

Dear Student,

You are a student. I am a parent, and a Christian one.

And you are partly right. Homofecalanal sex exists; so does homooral sodomy; so does sadomasochism; so does lesbian cunninglingus; so does lesbian 'sex' with artifical devices; so do people who copulate with animals and corpses and objects. So do people who engage in group sex orgies. It's nothing new; just read your Bible.

And so too is it true that parents cannot shield their children in today's society from the knowledge of the degraded abuse and wrong use of ones sexual organs (which are clearly designed to work with male and female, and which are clearly designed [by God] to create new human life, and which, in Godly marriage, beget that new life in the right place for it to be created. It is a sad thing about society. Society harms our children (and you too). The last thing parents want from their schools is more degradation.

God loves us - but it is a tough love. His love is not about a 'feeling,' but about what is truly best for us (which is to become like Jesus Christ). Jesus Christ would NOT condone a man's copulating with another man's rectum (out of love for that man - for that is not what God made man for, and such dehumanizes a man, in opposition to the fullness of what God wants and created a man to be).

You may not believe it, but the people who write these books, and the people who infest ECUSA, are people who are determined to get you to believe that homosex is good and natural and unharmful and Godly and something to be condoned. That, from a Christian point of view, is a form of evil. In the same way, many kids in public and private schools are today given stories which seek to promote drug use as a good, or murdering ones unborn children as a good, or creating families without married mothers and fathers as a good. These are also forms of evil. In the Catholic Church, the overlooking of homosodomy among priests has led to the sexual molestation of over 10,000 teenage boys in the past few decades. That's another expression of this form of evil.

You are taught by Christ (as I am) to love every single person on this earth - but that is true love - the love that binds people to God's loving morality (which is designed to be the best for us and for children and for society), and to the chance at eternal life with Him.

The man who is going to deny his donations to your school is doing the right thing, by refusing to be part of this evil (which harms kids - which is something Christ warns us about in the most shocking and absolute of ways).

My kids are accosted by the evils of the world every day - on TV, in the newspapers, in the town. In the Christian school they attend, they are supposed to be lifted up toward God, and with a clear understanding of what is Godly and what is not, what is holy and what is not, what is right and what is wrong. And they are (or I would not send them there).

The people who have posted on the site have a clear sense that your school and the people who are leading it are failing in that.

When it's your turn to be a parent, you can expose your children to thoughts and the condoning of things like homoanalfecal sex (or any other sexual sin) if you want. You can be happy when your son dates another boy and they become homosexually involved. But you will be doing your children a serious form of unlove (and sinning as well yourself), as it is being done to you now.

Finally, Christ calls every one of us to be innocent, like children (if we are to get to heaven). That includes you and I, even if we be over 18. Purposefully exposing anyone to sexual deviance takes away that innocence, and inures people to unGodliness. In other words, we may have to be exposed to evil and unGodly things. We should not do it on purpose - to ourselves or anyone else.

Finally finally, and this is REALLY important. Christ tells us not to judge others, but to judge people's acts. Sinful acts are out; Christ was completely intolerant of sin (of there would be no point to him). BUT CHRIST DOES AND WILL JUDGE US - EACH ONE OF US. He tells us that. God IS judgmental, and perfectly just. That is why many will end up in hell - because they behaved in selfish, unGodly, depraved, prideful and evil ways. God does NOT want that out of love (he even let His son die for us to prevent that), but stupid people insist on it. Christ tells us over and over, a great many will not pass judgment well.

Give yourself over to God, not to the world.

With much, much Christian love,

Essodalori

"I am a student at st. andrews school.
i understand that gay sex may not be morally right to all of you, but this does not mean that it does not exist.many of the seniors at this school who read this book are 18 years old and are legal adults. they will soon enter the real world, where you as parents cannot shelter them any longer. the reason our school shows us these things is not to "corrupt" us and make us bad people. instead it is to prepare us for life outside our little bubble of school and family. gay sex, homosexuality, alcholism: these things are all real. we are taught to "love our neighbor as ourself," but how can we do this if we do not understand our neighbors around us? jesus did not hate "sinners." instead, he accepted them as human beings and did not judge them. he loved them despite their faults. i suggest you get over your fears and do the same."--student

Right on, and God bless you! You have a more mature understanding than many of the "adults" who post here!

Student:

You believe that your school lets you read books about gay cowboys not to corrupt you, bu to prepare you for life outside your "little bubble of school and family." Are we to understand that before you read this book, you had never heard of gay sex? Do you never watch TV, listen to CDs, go to movies, surf the Internet? Certainly you knew about gay sex before this.

The point is that your school, an authority figure in your life, is presenting gay sex to you as an acceptable way of life. Like it or not, agree or not, such a presentation is at odds with the teaching of the Old and New Testaments, and the Church. The people who give money to your school believe that. They understood that your school was going to keep its promise to teach Christian moral values. They now feel that your school has broken its word and is teaching something opposed to Christian moral values. And so they have withdrawn their support, as they should.

Kurtthomas, If you ever have a child to raise, you will, i hope, have a more mature understanding. And if you do marry and have children and raise them in the fear of the Lord then you just might get to experience the joy of grandchildren.

Peace of Christ, gregory

"i am a student at st. andrews school."

I am occasionally a cynic, and I do not believe the author of your post is a student at st. andrews school.

"i understand that gay sex may not be morally right to all of you,"

whether something is morally right is not a matter of subjective perception but of absolute objectivity

"but this does not mean that it does not exist."

truly, evil exists

"many of the seniors at this school who read this book are 18 years old and are legal adults."

and 17 year olds are legally minors

"they will soon enter the real world,"

they already live in "the real world," unless their school is a fantasy land

"where you as parents cannot shelter them any longer"

shelter them from what? seduction into sin?

"the reason our school shows us these things is not to 'corrupt' us and make us bad people"

question authority

"instead it is to prepare us for life outside our little bubble of school and family"

it is to prepare you to oppose the evil outside your family and school, not to participate in it

"gay sex, homosexuality, alcholism: these things are all real."

DEATH is REAL and as gay sex, homosexuality and alcoholism lead to DEATH; they are all really to be avoided ... REALLY!

"we are taught to 'love our neighbor as ourself,'"

and therefore not to love and condone deadly conduct like "gay sex, homosexuality, alcoholism," etc. which is harmful to our neighbors

"but how can we do this if we do not understand our neighbors around us?"

understand that your neighbors are sometimes benighted and, loving them, you will enlighten them to the error of their ways and not, youself, succumb to darkness

"jesus did not hate 'sinners.'"

So, you agree that they ARE sinners? No one said He did; He hates sins--like gay sex and alcoholism, etc.

"instead, he accepted them as human beings and did not judge them"

wrong, he judged their sin as sin and told them to go and sin no more

"he loved them despite their faults"

and it was out of love, not hate, that he told them to stop sinning

"i suggest you get over your fears and do the same"

I suggest you are not a student at St. Andrews at all.

Seriously, everyone, do you really think we have so timely been visited by a student at St. Andrews' School? (And note: it is the poster ("student"), not I, who made an issue of his identity in order to enhance his credibility.)

I encourage a further dose of cynicism whenever a new "personality" receives a "me too" from those whom we know to have no interest in serious, rational debate on this site.

Hi all ...

I wish to address "Student". I'm a parent, but one that is not much older than you.

In essence, you said, "get over your fears and love them"...frankly, I do love them, and so, I believe, does God. But, absolutely none of this, for me, is about fear, it's about Christian STANDARDS as laid out in the Bible. There's an excellent book out there("I Don't Want to Talk About It") by an author named Terry Real. It's about healing after being raised by a father who was severely depressed. In the book, the characteristics of successful parents are outlined: 1) nurture; 2) guidance; and 3) limit-setting. This third one, many times, is even more important than love, because there's a very necessary thing in the world known as "tough love". Good parents expect their children to adhere to standards, and, do you not think God is the ultimate parent? God lays out His standards in the Scriptures. Sure, there's tons of stuff in there about love, but also much about behavorial standards. The Far Left, for lack of a better term, seeks to ignore those in the names of Peace and Love, but I don't believe that's what God wants us to do.

Fear has absolutely nothing to do with it, and I strongly believe in "love the sinner, but hate the sin". For me, all of it revolves around actions, not personhood. God describes his standards in the Scriptures, and Church Doctrine and the Liturgy come from there, too. I believe that if one does not want to follow the standards and doctrine, he/she should go be a Unitarian; nothing wrong with them and no hard feelings. But, to try to make this into a non-doctrinal, Unitarian Liturgical Church is heretical and an oxymoron. God calls us to evaluate our lives and refrain from sin as "standardized" in the Bible, amongst many other things.

It's not about fear or a lack of love. People never LEARN unless there are behavioral LIMITS. God, as any good, nuturing parent, sets limits on His children, and, in doing so, gives us the ultimate example of love.

In Christ,

Philippa

PS to "Student"--

I assume you mean the St. Andrews School that's in DE. I was born in DE, and the school and surrounding area are just beautiful. I hope you're enjoying all your time there, and I wish you much success when you are done.

Part of the reason why all of this may be hard to understand is because the Episcopal Church does such a lousy job with its Bible study and biblical teaching(I can say that because I'm a cradle Episcopalian and would know--most of my own learning in that department, by necessity, has been through self-study). I strongly encourage you to gradually and eventually read your Bible cover-to-cover. No problem whatsover if you want to critique it, debunk it, or disagree with it, but at least KNOW what it is you're disagreeing WITH...

With Christian Love,

Philippa

Let me explain a few things to anyone in agreement with this article. Hmosexuality doesexist in the real world. Is one function of High School not to prepare us for just that, the real world, or is it just that these things everybody has been telling us is all false? I don't see any way that acknowledging this is going to hurt anybody.

The plays you mentioned were performed by the school, yes. What does that matter? There are movies with similar content as well. Public TV shows, even. Should we ban all of it? Ban everything that includes, acknowledges or even implies acts of adultery, homosexuality, etc. Hell, why not just ban all books, movies and TV shows. They're not doing us any good anyway, by your logic.

Some students attempted to start these groups. The "Fellowship of Christian Athletes" as well as a Bible Studies group were both turned down, as you say. If I'm not mistaken, the school already has a Bible Studies group that meets regularly. As for the "Fellowship of Christian Athletes," if I had to guess their refusal did not have anything to do with the group itself as much as the way they presented or the accomplishments they claimed to seek. The National Day of Silence was optional. Students were never forced to participate. Nobody told them "Participate or you'll fail the class," or "Participate or you'll be expelled."

Lastly, I would like to point out one very important fact that perhaps you may have missed. St. Andrew's is a PRIVATE SCHOOL. If you don't agree with the school's views or teachings, then don't send your child there. You have no right to bitch and complain about what it is you <b>chose</b> to have your child taught.

You all have a right to your opinions, regardless of how bigoted and sexist they may be. By the same law, St. Andrew's has a right to teach its students what it chooses. If you don't like it, too bad. Take your child out of the community, then. Just don't expect anyone to care what you say.

Yes, St Andrews is PRIVATE. But, it also used to be "Christian".

I am occasionally a cynic, and I do not believe the author of your post is a student at st. andrews school.

I do not believe the author your post is an intelligent human being. Do you see the flaw in your logic?

and 17 year olds are legally minors

Does this matter? It's not as if they're not responsible. They're legally allowed to see R-rated, as well as NC-17-rated movies. Both of which often contain much more graphic content than that portrayed in the books.

they already live in "the real world," unless their school is a fantasy land

"The real world" is merely an expression. It's meant to mean life outside of high school, where everything we do is regulated and controlled by parents or guardians and by school faculty.

shelter them from what? seduction into sin?

Shelter them from dangers in the outside world, sin or otherwise.

question authority

"Question authority." A simple phrase that doesn't explain anything. Are you saying authority should never be questioned? Or did you just feel like throwing in a random phrase to make yourself seem intelligable?

it is to prepare you to oppose the evil outside your family and school, not to participate in it

Your argument is unfounded. "Evil" is defined differently by different people, you have no right to define it for the rest of the world, not to mention there's that tiny thing called the "first amendment."

DEATH is REAL and as gay sex, homosexuality and alcoholism lead to DEATH; they are all really to be avoided ... REALLY!

"Gay sex [and] homosexuality...lead to DEATH" is one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard. Where are you getting these "facts" from? Gay sex and homosexuality lead to death no more than straight sex and heterosexuality, except for the fact that it leads bigots like yourself to lynch people.

and therefore not to love and condone deadly conduct like "gay sex, homosexuality, alcoholism," etc. which is harmful to our neighbors

Gay sex and homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody. You're treating homosexuality as if it were the same thing as alcoholism, when in fact the two are completely different and unrelated.

So, you agree that they ARE sinners? No one said He did; He hates sins--like gay sex and alcoholism, etc.

The poster did not acknowledge that "they" are sinners, hence the quotation marks. If you claim that homosexuality is a sin, you can't deny other sins you've committed. Therefore God hates you.

and it was out of love, not hate, that he told them to stop sinning

You've used "And they were told to stop sinning" as your argument for the last three points. It's unfounded and it doesn't have any basis.

I suggest you are not a student at St. Andrews at all.

That has nothing to do with the debate at hand. Whether or not the poster is a student does not change his/her opinions. I would like to point out that you are just using that as an excuse because you have no argument.

And for the record, whether you believe it or not, as it doesn't matter one bit, I too am a student at St. Andrew's.

Dear Student at St. Andrews School,

You said: i understand that gay sex may not be morally right to all of you, but this does not mean that it does not exist.

As a Labrador retriever, I sympathize with your plight. Since I have not been reading for as long a time as you, I will have to defer to your judgment, since I have not had time to read this book.

Personally, I think it's an abomination to censor anything. I also feel that it is your right, as an 18 year old, to get falling down drunk and puke on other people's shoes. It is also your right to crap in a bag and smear it all over your body. Crap, as I well know, is a natural thing. Where would we be without it? Where COULD we be without a good dump every day? The smearing part could become a problem, though.

You also mentioned the "real world." You are a brave young man if you think you will be in it. Actually, my guess is that your school has molded your mind to the point that you are just about ready to go to college, minus some grammar lessons. The REAL WORLD of college awaits you. College is the real world, right? And from there, it's off to work in Daddy's business, or for the scholarship kids, it's back to not being patronized.

You have not been corrupted by your school. If you were smart, you ignored most of what was taught in favor of reading what you thought was important - except, hopefully, math & logic.

And you are right, God loved us so much that he let us kill his son and blame it on somebody else, kinda like that dufus that everybody in school picked on because he wore the clothes that were just a little out of style. Or the girl who screwed everybody because she had no self respect. Or the "School NEGRO" who was there to help the team win a few.

At this point you actually believe that you have a handle on life. And in a way, you're right. But your handle cranks the wrong machine at this point. When you're 27 or so, you will understand what I'm saying. But until then, don't rush to be grown up.

This is the best time of your life. Let yourself be young. Have fun. In time, you will meet CS Lewis or someone like him and you will have wasted the only innocence you have.

But don't think that gay sex is anything more than arrested adolescent behavior. And try to remember that at this age, if you are not a liberal, you have no heart - by the time you're 27, if you're not a libertarian, you have no brain.

Best of luck in College,
Daisy the Wonderdog

Dear Student,

How can you say that the school's intention "is not to corrupt"? In fact, several of the High School's teachers are openly homosexuals/lesbians and had a hand in picking the book - for the very purpose of increasing acceptance and toleration of the gay lifestyle.

Warfield

"Since you have only been a member on this site for a few days, I suggest that you shut up for a bit and observe how these people treat those with whom they disagree. I give out as well as take abuse. Some others, like Father Steve, get abused but don't talk back. I'm more than happy to treat posters here like adults if they act like adults."

Mr. Thomas,
How do you know I have only been here for a few days? You are quite wrong--again.

Moreover, please explain how telling me to "shut up" is treating me like an adult.

It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is quite another to use the invective you do. More importantly, it has no place in the Christian faith but it apparently has a major place in your own brand of faith, whatever that may be.

If you claim Christ, remember Whose you are.

"You all have a right to your opinions, regardless of how bigoted and sexist they may be. By the same law, St. Andrew's has a right to teach its students what it chooses. If you don't like it, too bad. Take your child out of the community, then. Just don't expect anyone to care what you say."

---

Four real things, TryReality -

1) Your school holds itself out to be Episcopalian, and presumably Christian. That makes it the business of people, like Episcopalians and Anglicans, and indeed all Christians, connected to your school through the church;

2) Our duty as Christians is to call people to Christ and away from sin and sexual degradation, out of love;

3) It is our duty as Christians to protect children from exposure to degradation and sin, out of love;

4) It's obvious that you care what is said here, or you wouldn't have posted. No one 'expected' that, but you have shown it to be true. (And I'm glad of it!)

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

My name is Bonnie, and I am a student at St. Andrew’s.
The amount of hate being exchanged here makes me so sad. Isn’t there enough going on in the world? How about giving that three million dollars to New Orleans where there are about 20,000 people in the Superdome without sewage or enough food? People are stuck in the roofs of their houses dying because no one knows that they are there, and we are worried about a book.

I could see a parent’s concern. A parent looking at there sweet first graders cringe to think of them reading graphic books. But we are seniors. We are all mature adults and we can handle it. The book is supposed to be taken for its literary value, not for pornographic purposes.

We have a beautiful chapel with daily services. We have a chaplain, various teachers, and sometimes students give talks about their religious views and experiences. The religion is not pushed on us, but it is definitely a prevalent part of our community.

We have a giving community that is constantly coming up with ways to give to the community, and we always go above and beyond what is expected. We donated so much rice to El Buen Sameritano last year(some odd tons) that we have to think of something else to give them this year because they still have so much.

Our school is a great place, and Mrs. Nazro is a lovely person. All of this hate will only make us all unhappy. If your children are strong enough Christians, then they will still have their faith after reading a gay sex scene.

Bonnie

to all of you who doubt me: yes, i am really a student at st. andrew's episcopal school in austin, texas. i have been going there since first grade and i love it.


what really angers me is that whole parts of the article are completely wrong. we do have a girls christian bible study and i am a member of it.


most of you posting here have no ties or affiliations to the school and therefore cannot really understand the whole story. the parents involved should not be using their wealth to try to control the school. if they so badly want a more "christian" environment for their students, then let them send them to a different school. the school does not cater to the needs of a few individuals. instead it is doing everything it can to enrich the lives of its students even if that means exposing them to things that might contradict the bible.



gay sex does not lead to death. instead it is the persecuting of homosexuals that leads to countless hate crimes and murders against them.


if you are going to take the bible one hundred percent literally, then you can't pick and choose which laws to follow. do you eat pig? according the bible this is wrong. the bible also says that people who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, should not be allowed to go to the altar. does that make any sense? have you ever cursed your mother or father? then according to the bible, you should be killed. by that law, i am guessing almost everyone on this board would be dead. it also also that anyone who is not christian should be killed. now, tell me if im wrong, but killing the majority of the world does not sound very "christian" to me.


what makes the laws about homosexuality still count while many others have been disregarded?

Oh, I must apologize for my stupidity. I did not realize that "Student" was from the SAS in Austin.

I completely agree that we live in a "world" and everyone must learn to deal with the world. But, said genre at private, Christian schools is completely inappropriate, I believe, for all the reasons I outlined above.

I agree with the fact that God is a god of compassion and love. But, He is also a God of behavioral standards. Frankly, I don't care if people want to stuff sheep in the pasture. I also don't care if said people want to go to church. But, I do care about the Church saying said behavior is ok, or blessing said behavior and calling it marriage.

I believe that one day, we will all have to stand before our Maker and own whatever we have done. That's just as personal a relationship with God as everyone has on Earth. Based on the content of the Scriptures, I just don't believe that compassion or love has to equal the religious sanction of gay marriage, and I have a problem with people who just expect the Global Anglican Communion to roll over and do it(you'll have to excuse the pun). I don't think this makes me a hatemonger or a homophobe; it just makes me a literate Christian who doesn't care to toss out the Bible or the doctrine.

In Christ,

Philippa

Good heavens! All these new posters from St. Andrews! And all the same day! And, what's more, they all agree with and think like Kurt. What a coincidence! I hope they have time for the chess club and soccer and everything else preppies have to do!

It is a fact that gay behavior leads to morbidity - look at the numbers from the Center for Disease Control. Although gays make up 3-4% of the population, they represent about 50% of the new AIDS cases in the US during the past several years.

Moreso, the life expectancy of gays is reduced by at least 20 years. This has been published in the scientific literature.

The students at SAS are being taught that it does not matter if you are homosexual when in fact it does.

One more correction, there are not countless hate crimes commited against homosexuals. These crimes are very rare and should not be condoned.

Thank you, Bonnie, for that poignant response. I too am a product of St. Andrew’s Episcopal School, having graduated in 2004. I attended St. Andrew’s for twelve years of my life and do not regret one moment of it.

Firstly, I want to commend those of you with whom I disagree but who have made important points that support your opinions well. However, those of you who have just lashed out at people you don’t know anything about, Mrs. Nazro (a very strong, very admirable, and very respected lady in both the SAS and Austin communities) as well as members of the Board (which includes my father), need to go back to Sunday school. Calling people who devote their lives to serving others and acting for the glory of God such words as “Satan” and “the damned” (you know who you are, and your post was a particular favorite of mine) only shows a deep-seeded disrespect and hatred for your neighbor. And if there’s anything that I learned in my twelve years of daily chapel services at St. Andrew’s, it’s to love your neighbor as yourself.

That ideal is something I believe is embodied in the Mission and Values of SAS that I think the McNairs skimmed over, or maybe they just read the SparkNotes version. There is no true way to convey the mission and values of St. Andrew’s other than living it for yourself and by seeing those values in action everyday. I did not just learn grammar, arithmetic, and Latin (my passion) at St. Andrew’s, I learned the values of humility, respect, and pride. And that pride in my school, in my teachers, and in my fellow students, past and future, is not going to be shaken by this unnecessary stink that has been raised by the McNair family. Their children are not even close to being seniors yet, and while they have every right to withdraw their funding and their children from the school because they disagree with the curriculum, they do not have the right to make this into such a public affair.

It is with this in mind that I hope and pray that this Anglo-drama passes without more hurt feelings and bruised reputations. Once I finish college and possibly graduate school, I fully intend to return to Austin, Texas, begin a career in teaching, perhaps at SAS, and send my kids to school there.

St. Andrew's Always True,
Lauren

Assuming these "students" are for real, they haven't learned much about punctuation and capitalization. Their posts remind of a bumper sticker I once read that said "Quick, hire a teenager while they still know everything."

Oh for crying out loud. What is your problem?

Interestingly, having been in my share of actual fights, the really tough guys don't talk about it. If they want to administer an attitude adjustment, they just do it.

Only the pipsqueaks blow-off and puff up their chests...

Heavy sigh. Brooklyn ain't what it used to be. Now it's up to South Philly to maintain tough-guy urban rube punk 'tude.

What's this world coming to?

Oh and by the way, I thought knives were used when it's become "personal".

Dear Student,

Before you were born, I was a frat boy at that year's Playboy Party School of the Year. Our house's nickname was "Animal House" because of our pet/mascot snake. And the movie...

Let me tell you something: I did some bad things there. And if I would have known about the really bad things, I would have done them, too. (There is much to be said for ignorance.)

What kept me out of deadly serious trouble, which sucked in more than one of my frat brothers and friends, was an absolutely strict upbringing that created within me a psychic line that I dare not cross. Call it a "conscience". Everyone used to have them back before the Beetles. you know, that old guy on the television...

A few years later, I realized that my father's military discipline was the only thing that saved me from a period in time much worse than today.

Your teachers do you no favor "introducing" you to this disgusting filth. The very knowledge of it will pollute your brain. Not to mention your soul.

And if any of your friends are "experimenting" or think they really are homosexual: DO NOT KEEP THEM AS FRIENDS. Same with the druggies and the party crowd.

Trust me on that one. Senior year was the best decade of my life. I can't even remember now if I had a good time; too hung over...

Stay clean and sober. Tell your partying friends to flip off. Trust me. You'll be glad you did.

Quote:

So Miss Love and Tolerance (you just love calling people those names, don't you. Makes you feel all high and mighty!)

Does that include you? You're the one telling our young people to kill themselves in the name of what? Anti-bigotry?

Ha!

That's a good one. "Kill yourself for Christ!"

Ha!

My name is Ava, and I am also a student at St. Andrew's School.
Like Bonnie, I feel that the hate being exchanged here is completely uncalled for. As Christians, shouldn't you be loving everyone radically? After all, Jesus dined with the outlaws and prostitutes, washing their feets without degrading them.

I've read a couple misunderstandings in this string of comments, and also in the initial article written. First of all, the school is not putting on a musical about gay cowboys, as someone said. The musical this year is "Company" by Stephen Sondheim. Yes, some of the material is questionable, but everyone involved in the musical is mature enough to handle the material objectively without their morals being shifted. Also, exposure to material of this kind in an objective fashion only strengthens us - we learn to deal with potentially dangerous or harmful situations in an objective way that does not affect our personal choices and morals.
Also in this way, it is also the audience's job to decide whether they want exposure to the material in the show, and that decision should be made before coming through the theater door.

Last year, the show we did was A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum, a famous musical by Stephen Sondheim, based on an ancient Greek play. I played the "babysitter" you mention in the article. I was not a babysitter, I was a very confused woman who was sold to a man who was in love with me, and the man's father involved was also very confused man who did not really understand what was going on. The moral of that story is to think for yourself and not take life as a dumb passer by - you might just accidentally fling yourself at your fiance's father. In the end of the story, true love is found and the beauty of a monogamous marriage is celebrated.

In the Bible, homosexuality is disapproved of in various places. However, also in the Bible, slavery is promoted, women are held to a much lower standard than men, and God condemns the eating of lobster, pork, and figs. In this modern day and age, there is a lot of interpretting in any situation, whether it be Biblical or in keeping with real day-to-day life, and if you teach your children to have strong enough faith, they can withstand any test.

The St. Andrew's community is an incredibly beautiful place, filled with radical Christian love. One of the tenants of the school is a focus on being a Christ-like servant. Year after year the students and teachers are astounding with their ability to put others first, as demonstrated by hundreds upon hundreds of community service hours given by the students. Freshmen and sophmores are given community service groups as a class once a week as the school's push to instill the value of service in us. My freshman year, I volunteered as a math tutor at a middle school to help an underpriveledged girl learn math and pass her TAKS test. Sophmore year, I volunteered at an elementary school as a little girl's reading buddy. Last year, one student voluntarily organized the "Rice and Beans Bowl", and with the help of St. Stephens, we donated 28,409 pounds of rice and beans to a local organization - El Buen Samaritano - to be able to feed the poor Austin community.
Isn't that something Jesus would do?

Every single day, we go to Chapel in the middle of the day. It is put in the middle so that we all take a break in the middle of our chaotic days and stop to reflect on God. Students participate beautifully, reading poetry, singing songs and playing instruments, and both students, teachers, and our school's chaplain give thought provoking sermons. This daily service is a staple of what holds our school together.

Concerning the book that the students "were forced to read" last year with "gay pornographic material"... well, there are a few corrections that need to be made.
The reading was optional. If you/your child did not want to read it, there was another book that he/she could have read.
Also, the book was not about "gay sex", even though it did contain one brief homoerotic scene. The theme of the book was different, and the students reading it were seniors. A good number of them were already 18 - legally adults. They can vote and fight for our country, and in my opinion, they can also decide what material they choose to read and listen to.

Part of being a Christian, I believe, is to learn the radical love and tolerance of Christ. One's morals are not everyone's, and it is impossible to expect this. The school does not endorse homosexuality, but in true Christian faith, we do not reject homosexuals from the community. As I said, Christ dined and washed the feet of the people no one would even touch or look at, and in this way, St. Andrew's practices true keeping with the tolerance and love preached.

In love,

Ava

Great idea! The gigantic international business machines company that I work for is in great need of experts. So much so that they must turn to India to find young graduates with a command of the English language. Heck, they should be trolling the halls of America's Episcopal high schools!

Lauren, one very important item you failed to list in the things you learned at school: morality. That's one of the MOST IMPORTANT things a Christian school is there to teach. It's also sadly overlooked and disregarded by many of today's youth. They're more concerned with not hurting feelings and being supportive. It sounds like the McNair family is spot on in their criticism of the curriculum. The "dumbing down" of morality in society and especially in schools is alarming. Your not-subtle put-down of the McNair family as raising an unnecessary, public stink is also not very Christian, and speaks volumes to your lack of maturity.

Now that's a damn shame! Everyone knows that cowboys kept their six shooter in their OWN holsters. And for Pete's sake, where is the integrity in reseaching fiction? This is Wyoming for goodness sake!? Everyone knows that's where men are men and the sheep are scared.

A complete stranger, upon seeing a name tag that said [insert church name here] Episcopal Church inquired, "So, what's all this going on in the Episcopal Church? What are they doing?" To which came the reply, "They're going to hell, going to hell."

“Whoredom is actually heard of among you, and such whoredom as is not even named among the nations… put ye away the evil from among yourselves." 1 Cor 5 (YLT)

I am another senior here at St. Andrews, and I believe this article is ridiculous. It is clearly written on the side of the McNair's. If you dont want your student to read a book that is OPTIONAL READING, then either dont read it, or dont send your kid to this school.

It is also the parent's job to teach morality, and if you've succeeded, this entire situation will not be a problem because the child's morals will be steadfast.

Quote:

Ava,

Not exactly.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. The Gospel of St John, 8:44, KJV

Our Lord commanded the Adversary, as told us in the Gospel of St. Matthew 16:23.

"But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men."

Ava, you are "savouring" the things of men. Men who seem nice but who are not what they appear. I hope you can go unharmed in life until you are old and wise enough to understand.

God be with you -- you will need his help.

"The amount of hate being exchanged here makes me so sad. Isn’t there enough going on in the world? How about giving that three million dollars to New Orleans where there are about 20,000 people in the Superdome without sewage or enough food? People are stuck in the roofs of their houses dying because no one knows that they are there, and we are worried about a book.

I could see a parent’s concern. A parent looking at there sweet first graders cringe to think of them reading graphic books. But we are seniors. We are all mature adults and we can handle it. The book is supposed to be taken for its literary value, not for pornographic purposes.

We have a beautiful chapel with daily services. "

---

You are very confused, Bonnie. The postings here are out of love, not hate! Hate is wanting the worst for another (as in - I hope you get killed in a car crash.) Disagreement is not hate. Calling people to Christian chastity cannot possibly be hate. In fact, it would save the lives of millions of homosexuals, and save the average homosexual man from the two venereal diseases (often incurable or deadly) he carries.

And yes, I would much rather give 3 million dollars to help those in New Orleans than to promote homocowboy sex to my kids. Who wouldn't? One is good; one is evil.

And perhaps you are right. Perhaps you can handle this. I personally seriously doubt it. I personally suspect that you have been corrupted by the people around you to accept sexual degradation as normal or Godly or good (all three being lies).

But you go to a Christian school. Why promote sexual degradation at a Christian school? (Hint: The people who promote it to you have an agenda...)

The chapel is beautiful I'm sure. What is taught in the school is not. Homoanalfecal sex, as an example, is NOT beautiful, should not be discussed in a Christian school, and is not Godly.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Dear St. Andrew's Students,

It's OK to have your opinions and to post them. But, please refrain from using your real names (or at least don't use the intial of your last names). It is simply not wise to do so.

Warfield

Allib, I don't think the issue of morality is overlooked in most modern curricula, but simply treaded upon more lightly than it has in the past. In our increasingly diverse country and schools, moral issues are often disagreed upon, as is seen here in this very forum. Different people from different religious backgrounds are going to define moral behavior differently. I think that is one of the reasons this story is an optional part of the curriculum. Various viewpoints, religious convictions, and definitions of moral behavior can be brought to the table in moderated and peaceful discussion. Admittedly, hardly anyone is going to walk away from it with a changed life or changed religious persuasion, but we might walk away from it with a better understanding and respect for others' beliefs and opinions. That sort of understanding is vital in our increasingly interconnected and politically charged world.

I am also a SAS student. I have to agree with Bonnie, there is so much more to SAS than this one book, like the things we do for people who are less fortunate than we are. And this book? It's not even REQUIRED reading. It's optional. The school does not force anyone to read it. The family who complained's child is not even in High School. The family had the right to pull funding if they wanted, but you'll notice that it's not the parents of the students in this class who are complaining. These kids are 17 and older, they can go into a theater and watch an NC-17 or R rated movie with the same or more graphic subject matter. There is a small part of our school that is homosexual, but they are no less valued than the rest of our school. They are no less enthusiastic about God than other members of the community. If we neglect the parts of the bible that tell us not to eat pork or the parts that tell us to stone disrespectful children, who are we to pick and choose which laws are and aren't important? And again, this book is not required. There are alternatives.

"My name is Ava, and I am also a student at St. Andrew's School.
Like Bonnie, I feel that the hate being exchanged here is completely uncalled for. As Christians, shouldn't you be loving everyone radically? After all, Jesus dined with the outlaws and prostitutes, washing their feets without degrading them."

---

Ava, You are also confused, like Bonnie.

Hate is about wanting the worst for the other. Love is about wanting the best for the other. Disagreement, where such disagreement is to want the best for the other, is love - not hate!

Loving someone radically, like Christ did, is to call people away from their sins and degradations. You can still have dinner with them and be nice to them!, as Jesus was at times, or you can be angry with them, as Jesus was with the Pharisees, for example, or whatever works. But to love the other, you need to call him/her away from sin (selfishness, evil, pride, bodily degradation, etc.). Otherwise, you are not really loving the other in a Godly sense. You're just feeling good about being nice. The two are radically different. God is about the first (wanting and insisting on what is best for the other - which is to become like Christ); ECUSA is infected with the second notion (that you should never offend, and that you should always be nice). Jesus called everyone away from sin (and called us to be perfect); Jesus told us it's better to cut off a body part than to let it cause us to sin. Jesus was often not nice (but love demands it). Jesus told the adulteress to sin no more. Do you have the courage to tell people around you that?

Jesus washed the feet of his disciples to show them humility and service in God's name.

As for degradation, people do that to themselves (and always, but always, by ignoring God).

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

"These kids are 17 and older, they can go into a theater and watch an NC-17 or R rated movie with the same or more graphic subject matter."

---

Sure, Katherine, high school kids can degrade themselves in any way they want (and they very, very, very often do - sexual rampantism and deviance, drugs, alcohol, piercing, bulimia, tatooing, smoking, etc. etc.).

I suppose it would be right to show an NC-17 film at your school too, in your opinion.

As for me and my wife, we send our kids to a Christian school where Godly things are held out to them (not degrading ones), and where kids are lifted up from society, not degraded down toward it. They are witness to enough degradation everywhere in society. We don't send them to school for more of it.

And that's out of love for our kids! They appreciate it. They tell us so. The truth is they could get homoporn (or porn of any other deviant sort) any time on the internet if they really wanted it. Fortunately, they are of the sort that know that to expose themselves to such is degrading, unGodly, filthy and harmful to their minds and souls. I'm glad.

Enjoy your homoporn. Your parents have paid a lot for it.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Treaded upon lightly? Boy, that's a euphemism if there ever was one. All of you students are missing the big point here, which is, this is an Episcopal school which is supposed to teach and support the Scriptures. It isn't supporting the Scriptures in this regard, period. Parents have a right and, indeed, a duty to complain. Once you are out of that school, you will all be exposed to this diversity you seem to value so much. Understanding is essential, tolerance is essential. Holding tight to your own religious values is even more essential.

Essodalori, you are the one who is confused. Holding a kid higher than society... sounds pretty "selfish" to me. showing an NC-17 movie at our school? she never said that, she said our senior students ARE old enough to go watch it at the movie theatre IF THEY WANT.

What's the difference, Student22?

She's condoning a homoporn book at the school by saying that she could go watch a porno NC-17 movie.

Why would she be opposed to a porno NC-17 movie at the school? She can handle it, right? And there's no reason (that she puts forward) that the school should not condone it, right?

As for hoping to elevate your kids to a higher level than society - that's love! That's what the whole Bible is about, right from the beginning to the end. Being Godly, rather than being worldly. Truly loving parents want their kids to live loving and undegraded lives. God (our Father) wants the same for all of us, out of love. You don't get into heaven by degrading yourself. You get into heaven by leaving sin behind, transforming yourself into a Christ-like creature, and becoming Godly (and by helping others to do so). But I can imagine that that would be a foreign idea in your school.

With much Christian love,

The ever confused Essodalori

Yes this is an Episcopal School. But they dont force you to obey the Episcopal religion, there might be a handful of Episcopalians at the school if that. It doesnt mean the school is failing us, they are dong a great job at this school, our parents are happy (not including mcnair family) and the students are happy.

Sure, Student22. Lots of people are happy when they sin and degrade themselves.

Fornicators, sodomites, gossips, drug users, drunks, those who envy, those who slander, those who steal, those who cheat, etc. etc.

If it's homoporn you want - you got it. (But wow, it sure is expensive...)

With Christian love,

Essodalori

We just have different beliefs. You seem focused on doing whatever you can to get yourself into heaven. It doesnt seem like you actually live your life, you are too busy trying to impress God. Thats fine, I would rather do my own thing, enjoy life, have fun, is that not what God wants. Joy and Fun?

I was just saying that both of those things are optional. The kids can ellect to read this book, the students can ellect to watch pornographic films (homosexual or heterosexual, I don't see how one is any worse than the other), these students can choose to do alot of things, but in both of these cases, no one's making them.

And it makes little sense to me that parents don't complain about the books that are on many schools' syllabi with heterosexual love scenes, but they complain about one optional book with a gay scene. I don't see why we are making that distinction. I know another Christian School assigned a required summer reading book for Freshman that had more than one heterosexual scene. There school did not recieve anywhere near the sort of backlash that SAS seems to be getting.

It's hard to know where to start with these postings. Who said anything about enforcing the Episcopal religion? Who said anything about the students being unhappy? I'm sure they're quite content with what's going on. You don't even have to be Christian to go to most Christian schools. The burden is not on you; it's on the faculty to teach the tenets of our church. Somehow, I still don't think you students get it, which is very sad but not terribly surprising.

Ok, first of all, I am a former student of St. Andrew's Episcopal Upper School in Austin, TX. I graduated in 2004 and am now 20 years old and a sophomore in college. In my senior Humanities class, we read "Brokeback Mountain" by Proulx.

I am not gay by any stretch of the imagination. However, I have many friends who are. If you are truly Christian, then you know it is NOT your place to judge them or condemn them. If you call yourself Christian and choose to so condemn, as is your right in this country, then you place yourself in with the worst of bigots or at best, the hypocrites.

I don't claim to have a hold of a universal truth and I honestly believe that anyone that claims to do so is delusional. We're all human and I'm pretty sure none of us have a direct line to God. Your opinion is just that. One of the beautiful things about the senior Humanities classes is the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. NO ONE is forced to agree; in fact we were encouraged to disagree with each other. Debate was central to the class.

I believe that "Brokeback Mountain" is an invaluable part of the class syllabus. Before attacking this story, I encourage you to go to http://www.annieproulx.com/ and read around the site, especially the “curriculum vitae” link.

We were never required to test on "Brokeback Mountain" and were never forced to participate in discussion about it. Probably the most direct question we were required to answer was a simple reading quiz question along the lines of "Where did the story take place?" in order to make sure we were doing our reading.

The world is full of "sin," as some of you have put it, in all its many forms. Reading Dr. Seuss books all day long won't change that fact. However, reading Dr. Seuss books all day long will also insure that we remain as unaware as possible of the realities of the world we live in until they slap us in the face. I’m not saying that everyone should embrace every way of life or view of the world and make it part of their own, I’m simply saying you should be respectful of the ways of life and views of the people around you.

Why censor “Brokeback Mountain”? Also included in the senior Humanities syllabus are these stories: Tess of the D’Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy, in which a young girl is either coerced into consenting or outright raped and so conceives a child. Chronicle of a Death Foretold by Gabriel Garcia Marquez in which the main character wakes up after a night of partying at a wedding and is blamed for the defloration of the bride at some point before the wedding and whose gruesome death is relayed to the reader several times from different points of view. “The Children’s Hour” by Lillian Hellman in which the rumors of a teacher’s homosexuality started by a girl in an all girls boarding school tear the school and its two teachers apart even though backed by no substance. In the end, the teacher herself realizes the coincidental truth of the rumors and kills herself. Or how about The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner which contains suicide, castration of a mentally retarded character, racism, underage sex and pregnancy, heavy incestual themes, and inhuman treatment of several of the characters.

Why not censor? For starters let’s look at the other side to all of these books. In Tess of the D’Urbervilles, we see an accurate representation of life as it was in the 19th century in rural England. We are also shown a beautiful story of love and coming of age in a hostile world. In Chronicle of a Death Foretold we are introduced to a Nobel Prize winner’s incredibly objective telling of an equally incredibly human, and subjective story. In “The Children’s Hour” we are shown how the unthinking and slanderous actions of someone can have deadly results in the lives of those around them (ponder that for a minute). In The Sound and the Fury we are shown the unwavering, unconditional love of a brother for his sister despite all of the faux pas she has committed. We are shown a world with no padding, no false niceties, and certainly no censorship.

“Brokeback Mountain” is presented to us as just another form of literature. It shows us just one of the millions of different facets of the world we live in. No book can be evil. No story can be evil. The only evil in the world is the untolerating, close minded actions of people who believe in something so fanatically that they cannot accept the existence of something that does not fall into their world view.

-Chip, SAS Lifer

(Side note: “Brokeback Mountain” is a short story, not a book. It is 30 pages long.)

[Excerpt from original j1024 post]

Additionally, I have seen the theatrical productions that the article incorrectly makes reference to. In the musical last year, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum there was a case of mistaken identity between a virgin courtesan and a maid. The implied affair did not actually happen and the courtesan escaped her slavery-status and married the man she fell in love with. This, as I believe, is a Chrisitan ideal, marriage between a man and a woman for love to last a lifetime. (If you doubt me, watch the movie, however the stage production was edited further than the movie.) Furthermore, the prodution, based on the comedies of Plautus (a Greek playwright), is known to be highly farcical and not meant to be taken seriously.

I am only loosly familiar with this year's musical. “Company,” by Stephen Sondheim does contain material that may be considered questionable by parents. However, the script has been havily edited for content and censored. This version has been approved by the board, the headmaster, the upper school director, and parents who have asked to read it. I have heard comments about the revision praising it for its support of marriage. This article makes reference to the un-edited version.

I'm not yet a senior so I haven't read “Brokeback Mountain,” however, it is an OPTIONAL reading, presented to seniors who are within 7 weeks of graduation. The majority of these people are 18, all of whom should be expected to be able to handle such a story before facing the harsher realities of college and later life. Hearsay tells me that, while this reading is based on a love story between two gay men, the actual sex scenes are very short and would hardly warrant calling this story pornography.

[...]

"We just have different beliefs. You seem focused on doing whatever you can to get yourself into heaven. It doesnt seem like you actually live your life, you are too busy trying to impress God. Thats fine, I would rather do my own thing, enjoy life, have fun, is that not what God wants. Joy and Fun?"

---

I am going to tell you one of life's greatest secrets, Student22, and you won't believe me now. Perhaps, however, you will come to believe me later.

There is no greater joy or freedom than living a Godly life, in love and dedication for others, and in freedom from sin.

Your degradations, even if you enjoy them (like illicit sex, drugs, making fun of people, whatever), will not help you become a truly joyful person; they will only make you a slave to your predilections.

I live a wonderful and truly happy and joyful life. I have a beautiful wife of 18 years, a great business, and three truly wonderful and beautiful children. And best, I have a great relationship with God - and a decent chance at eternal life.

I lack for nothing!

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

P.S. 'Clean' fun is always far more rewarding to the soul than 'dirty' fun. True joy comes from Godly things, not from worldy degradations.

Sure j1024. God loves all people - including homosexuals. Christians are to love all people - even their enemies! (No other religion makes that extreme requirement of love for others.)

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Did i say anywhere that I enjoy "illicit sex, drugs, making fun of people"? It seems that you are judging people... which im pretty sure God would not appreciate considering he never judged people. Maybe you should try reading "The Screwtape Letters" hey what do you know, a book read by some of the seniors.

"I’m simply saying you should be respectful of the ways of life and views of the people around you. "

---

No, that's not true, Chip. When people harm themselves or others in deep ways, one should NOT respect what they are doing. One should love an alcoholic; one should not encourage him in his degradation by 'respecting' what he is doing, and one should try to help him give it up (otherwise, one is just being nice, but not truly loving). Respect is for respectful things. Many people engage in things which are not repsectful. Such things do not deserve respect. We should truly love people; we should not always respect them. (Just as Christ didn't respect the Pharisees. If he had, he would not have been loving them.)

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

"Did i say anywhere that I enjoy "illicit sex, drugs, making fun of people"? It seems that you are judging people... which im pretty sure God would not appreciate considering he never judged people. Maybe you should try reading "The Screwtape Letters" hey what do you know, a book read by some of the seniors."

---

No you didn't, Student22; but neither did I say you did. Those are activities common to many high schoolers, as I'm sure you know.

As for what you say about God, you are dead (literally) wrong. God and Christ tell us that they will judge us, according the lives we have lived, and that most of us will not get to heaven (because we are not trying very hard to be truly Godly and truly good). (The gate is narrow, not wide, the wheat will be separated from the chaff, etc.)

If God did not judge, there'd be no reason to not do anything our little corrupted hearts, minds, souls (or other parts of our bodies) wanted. There'd be no point to God or to Christ! We'd just be effecfive atheists, making up our own (corrupted) ideas of good and evil in whatever way we wanted.

And who have I judged? Christians are called to judge actions (selfish, evil, prideful, degrading, etc. etc.), not the people.

And I've read the Screwtape Letters many times. It's about how the force of evil encourages by any means possible to get people to engage in evil, selfishness, degradation, pride, etc. etc.

Christianity is about how to successfully overcome and surmount that force - with Christ's loving help, and to transform oneself into Godly material. Being a Christian is the most exciting thing around.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

And yet, Jesus tells us that all those who accept the forgiveness of Jesus Christ will go to heaven. No one, no matter how hard they try, is good enough on their own to make it to heaven. The smallest sin means you miss the mark just as much as someone else who commits a massive one. One of the men who was being crucified with Jesus had committed some pretty terrible sins, but he recognized Jesus for who he was and repented, and Jesus told him that he would be with him in heaven.

God does not judge humans, the actions that humans make judge themselves. God only creates, he allows humans to have their own free will which determines whether they will go to heaven or not.

Dear Children at St. Andrew's: you are all missing the point. You have obviously not been taught: Love the sinner, hate the sin Murderers, thieves, adulterers, etc., are all children of God and are to be loved by us all. Do we like what they did? Do we love them because of what they do? Do we love them INSPITE of what they do and have done? Think these questions over for a while - and while I applaud what you believe is your maturity - if you think you're mature now - wait until you're 50!!! And, if you think homosexual BEHAVIOR is ok - read the Bible again - and the right one this time.

"The smallest sin means you miss the mark just as much as someone else who commits a massive one."

---

Well, Katherine, you're right in that we all commit some sins, and that we can be forgiven any evil, if we truly repent.

But you're wrong in that all sins are equivalent. Purposefully murdering my neighbor is far, far, far worse than eating too much at dinner (gluttony). Inuring a child to sin is far, far, far worse than stealing a paper clip at work.

The problem today is, as it always has been, is that many wants their sin, selfishness, degradations, evil, pride, etc. but don't want to admit they're sins, and don't want to repent. Many others like to sin and give lip-service repentance. (If I just say I'm sorry, I can go on doing it.) Such doesn't fool God, of course, and is a one-way ticket to hell. It should be. Such a person has not become Godly, nor shown a true interest in so becoming.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Yeah, I'm another student at St. Andrew's and trust me, I will not be leaving my name here.

This is my twelfth year at this school and yet I am definitely not religious. I have best friends who have attended SAS as long as me, who define themselves by Christian beliefs. Our school's aim is to teach us to make our own decisions, not to convert us or force beliefs on us. Read this (from our school's website):
"We strive for intentional pluralism. We invite people from all denominations and creeds to work in and attend our school. We honor all persons—Episcopalian or not—and strive for justice, peace, and understanding among all people and respect the dignity of every human being."

EVERY human being includes homosexuals. As a bunch of people have said this book is optional reading. OPTIONAL.

"Students of any faith are welcomed here and while they do attend daily chapel, they are in no way asked to convert. We value life the lessons that can be learned through interaction with people of similar and different backgrounds."

You people are so damn judgemental. You know nothing about our school except what you have read in a biased article. You do not know the teachers who recommend the reading, nor do you know the people who organize our plays, and least of all do you know Mrs. Nazro. What is the point of judging somebody- moreover, a community- who you know nothing about?

You have your opinions on the sinfulness of the content of this book. So is the issue that this book discusses something which should be kept under wraps, or is it that you do not believe a school- a Christian school- should teach it? If it's the first one, then attack the author of the book not our school. If it's the second, again... they don't teach it, it is simply optional reading. If giving us the opportunity and free will to read it bothers you, send your kid to a more structured and restrictive school that leaves no room for choice or the development of one's own character.

You must all live very sheltered and confusing lives if you want to turn a blind eye to the issues of homosexuality, drugs, and alcoholism. I for one believe that you are born homosexual, not converted. And I do not believe it a sin, but rather admire gays for having the courage to stand against bigots like you. Open your eyes.

Esso, you are right - this is child abuse. I have spoken to several psychologists over the past day or two about this - they are all in agreement and one even went so far as to say someone should sue the school - sexual abuse or harassment - of their child - whether or not this is optional reading.

I never said anything about homosexuality. Im mature enough though that I am not going to tell homosexual people that they are living their life wrong. I respect and love all the people at St. Andrews, heterosexual, homosexual, chistian, jewish, conservative, liberal, longhorn, sooner, it doesnt matter, i love and respect them all.
You should rethink the first 50 years of your life if you believe that homosexuals are going to hell.

How long can you really trick yourselves into believing that you can love somebody while hating what they are doing? Sooner or later you will express your anger and concern with the action, of homosexuality or whatever.

I don't think those things come independently. You can either accept both or accept neither.

Attack me for that statement all you want, my opinion on you (and i mean the general you- the ones who are attacking SAS) will only worsen and probably, most likely, turn me away from Christianity. For a religion that preaches so much love, y'all seem to be very hateful.

"God does not judge humans, the actions that humans make judge themselves. God only creates, he allows humans to have their own free will which determines whether they will go to heaven or not."

---

Not true, Student22. God created us, and yes, he gave us the gift of free will (with which we can choose Him, or deny Him). And yes, it is people's own fault that they end up in hell. But the decision as to who goes where is given by God to Christ. Christ tells us that we will be judged. (Did we really try to avoid sin, and be truly loving, and did we really devote our lives to God and to His goodness, and did we really repent truly and fully of our sins, and truly hope to never commit them again? Did we truly try to give up all our selfishnesses? Did we truly try to not look at others lustfully? Did we truly try to be humble? Did we truly try to be like Christ himself?) Those are things which we will be judged for. God is perfectly loving, but also perfectly just. Both love and justice require judgment.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

I don't think you can put homosexuals on the same level as murderers and theives.

But in all honesty, homosexuals, many of them, believe they were born that way. If you aren't going to condemn pork eaters to death, what makes you think you can decide that homosexuality is a worse sin?

These kids continually read things into our posts that we never said, and assume we're bigots because we don't think all behavior is acceptable to God. I don't know about everyone else, but this cluelessness is overwhelming me....

and yet I am definitely not religious

Honey, your rantings are no different than the ones you attack - you are not only not religious, I doubt if you are even Christian. Call me in 30 yrs - when you grow up - again, this is a Love the sinner, hate the sin issue. Homosexual activity is against nature. When you study the order of nature this will become extremely clear to you. Homosexual behavior is aberrant, perverted behavior - you can believe a person is born that way or not - makes no difference. Pedophiles - is that learned behavior or are they born that way? I have never heard of a pedophile being "cured" - they always return to deviant behavior. However, I digress. LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN. It is a real simple argument. Teenage years are years filled with confusion - Take it from me - I was a bona fide hippie - the total scene - to know me today one would never have guessed I'd turn out this way. And, since your parents are the ones footing the bill, I think they should decide what color to paint the house.

i think students would be the correct term, some of the students you are talking to are 18

Allib posts: but this cluelessness is overwhelming me....

Give yourself three minutes and think back to when you were 16, 17 -

"How long can you really trick yourselves into believing that you can love somebody while hating what they are doing? Sooner or later you will express your anger and concern with the action, of homosexuality or whatever."

---

You are confused also, anotherone.

First - no one has said anything hateful. Calling a person to chastity is not hate (because it is not wanting the worst for another). It is truly, wanting the best for the other, though that is hard for some to see. As I said above, God's loving morality would save the lives of millions of homosexuals (and millions of others too, in the sexual sense). His sexual and marital morality would also prevent children being created for a sexual lark, children being born to motherless or fatherless families, children born to mothers and fathers who are not committed to loving each other for life, the rampant venereal disease (including AIDs), which brings death and destruction everywhere, and orphans and diseases many children, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Hate is about wanting the worst for the other (as in: I hope you burn in hell.) Love is wanting the best for the other - I hope you become more Godly and Christ-like and make it to heaven to be with God.

My grandmother was an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. She lived half her life in a drunken stupor, and then died of lung cancer. She was selfish in what she did, for there were many she could have helped had she given up her vice. I loved her more than any grandson could, and always wanted the very best for her. I hated what she did to herself (and to others as well). Can you see?

Expressing anger and concern for people who are abusing or harming themselves and/or others is required by love! You cannot love, if you are not willing to offend. (Political correctness drains true love from society, and Jesus Christ was the most politically incorrect man in the history of the world. That's in part why he was strung up on a cross!)

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

i think students would be the correct term, some of the students you are talking to are 18

My oh my. Whatever.

well that was mature

I don't think you can put homosexuals on the same level as murderers and theives

A sin is a sin is a sin. Just because someone says it isn't so - doesn't make it so - born that way or not - and that is still a dubious argument - I can tell you I was "born" a thief, or a psychopath - whatever - just because someone says it ain't so doesn't make it right. Examine the issue.

Essodalori,

are you willing to agree with me in that your views values etc., my views values etc., and those of many other people in the world differ greatly as to what is degrading?

Which of us has the right to force our view of the world on another? As an EMT, I have to respect someone's choices even if it means their death under my care. I cannot make the determination that their wishes are wrong no matter what I believe. (I'm oversimplifying the legalities of this. A police officer can place them under arrest and direct me to care for them regardless of their wishes.)

How can I tell people I know, who are as sane and intelligent as I am that they are wrong simply because I don't find their way of life personally attractive? That would be a judgement based on my system of morality, and if theirs differs from mine, I would be conceited if I believed that I had any more of a grip on the "Truth" than they do.

-Chip

I believe that God judges the content of our hearts, not our actions.

Though our actions generally reflect the content of our hearts, I know a lot of people who feel differently on some grey area issues. Homosexuality being one of them. I know a fair few homosexual people and I don't think any differently about them than the other people I know. People are just people, they are not categorized like gay/straight/black/white/hispanic/male/female, etc.

I don't think God has a running tally of everything we screw up. If we are generally repentant, recognize that we are sinners, recognize that we can not get there on our own and accept the forgiveness we are offered, I believe that we will go to heaven. Heaven would be heavily underpopulated if God kicked people out for every one sin they didn't repent for.

Orthoduckx, see what I mean?

well that was mature

No - that was glib - look that one up - and, shouldn't you be going to bed right about now?

"I don't think you can put homosexuals on the same level as murderers and theives."

---

I didn't, Katherine. But men who poke each other in the butt with their sexual organs, and involve themselves with each others' feces, and who corrupt themselves sexually, are damaging body and soul. It is not loving to condone that.

It's also not loving to condone two people's buying cigarettes for each other, or heroin for each other, and so on.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Yes, OrthoDuckx, they don't get the point. But, I wonder if we get this point - These young adults have all imbibed deeply of the "Spirt of this Age" - Relativism. They have been taught that the only true virtue is tolerance of everything except the existence of objective truth. And, they have believed it! Many of them have been taught that Jesus never judges, but only loves. Anything in the Bible that does not fit with THAT view of Jesus will not to be tolerated by them. These are very bright students - let's hope and pray that as they grow and mature in their knowledge they will come to embrace a more complete view of Jesus. I hope that some of them will spend a lot of time reflecting on some of the more edifying discussion on this thread.

Warfield

Well said, Warfield

"shouldn't you be going to bed right about now?" It's only 9:45 here, and id ask the same to you... but im going to judge you and assume that you dont have a life because you would rather sit here and argue with a bunch of students at an Episcopal school about how to live their life, and tell us how bad our school is

Orthoduckx, see what I mean?

Yes, Allib, I do see what you mean clearly. Unfortunately, like the counter-culture elements of the 60s, there is no discussion. Age tempers all. Sometime ago when my son was 17 or 18 he demanded I take a point he was trying to make seriously - I was tired and told him that I simply don't negotiate with children. I will take an argument under advisement but I will not be strong-armed into doing what he wanted. The revisionists, of which this school is inundated with, have used extremely persuasive arguments for the "acceptance" of homosexual behavior. Having said that, I will refer all to check out www.catholic.com and check out what my spouse's faith - and most orthodox believe - about homosexuality. There are 1.2 billion RCs in the world - they can't all be wrong. And, the RCs have a wonderful organization for homosexuals called "Courage". Young minds are extremely pliable and malleable. One can only hope they grow out of this phase.

stoneridge:

See, there's this thing we people in the world like to call "communication." One student hears about the article and then proceeds to tell his/her friends about it. This process continues until a large portion of the community knows about it. This is why there are so many students suddenly posting. Besides that, the article was posted today.

mello:

Statistics can be manipulated into saying whatever someone wants. It all depends on who is polled. It's not that they make up the recent AIDS cases, they're just the ones who were asked about it.

Allib:

Just because some of us don't use proper grammar doesn't mean we're incapable of thinking. Looking back at the posts, most of the student responses actually have proper grammar.

Joe of the Mountain:

I never said anything about killing anybody. When I said "Take your child out of the community," I was referring to the St. Andrew's community. Take them out of the school. The one that you claim to hate so much. I never told anybody to kill anyone. There are other communities in this world.

To all of you:

You all claim that the school is not enforcing any Episcopal beliefs. We meet every day for a chapel service and do immeasurable community service. We are also, in fact, required to take a religious studies course senior year. But for the most part, the academic section of the school doesn't necessarily have to reflect Christian views. If that is the case, goodbye sciences. The Bible defies science in many, many places. English class is the same way. We don't study the Bible in English class, we study great literature. So this literature might very well have questionable material. But we are high school students - Senior high school students - and we are mature enough to handle it.

Student22: you miss the point. I believe it is my responsibility as a Christian to bring you to the light. I have taught theology at the college level - I have heard all the arguments. I was Jesuit educated at both the high school and college level. I am not telling you how bad your school is - the school is merely a building. I am telling you your thought process is in error. The operative thought is supposed to be: LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN.

Ok, I'm another SAS student. There are several things here that I am apalled by. Firstly, and extremely crucial, is the blatant lie in the article that Mrs. Nazro rejected the Female Bible Study Group (I don't think I got that name fully correct, and I'm sure I will be chastized on such a worhtless mistake, which brings me to my next point.) What the hell? People are making perfectly legitimate points in this argument and the Conservatives have the nerve to comment on punctuation? This just tells me that you guys are running out of good arguments. All you can do is stand by your literal interpreation of the Bible. Well, here's my advice to you: If you want the Bible to be taken literally by your kids, take them OUT of SCHOOL. School is going to do two things to them: put them in an environment in which they will be subjected to non-Christian behaviour (no matter how Christian the school says it is) and teach them to interpret what the read, and get past the actual letters. But, if you want to take the Bible literally, you may as well just move out of your home and quit your current life, considereing EVERYTHING you do is a bi-product of industry harmful to mankind and nature, which is a "product of God." And I know that if I love someone, I don't fuck up their shit. Otherwise, get over the book that raises a miniscule issue probably 1000 miles away from you.

-Daniel

"I believe that God judges the content of our hearts, not our actions."

---

Well, Katherine, you can believe whatever you want, but neither the Bible nor Christ himself (You know, the Son of God..) support that view.

The truth is, we are judged for both. For example, we can refrain from committing sexual sin, while lusting after the other, and that is still sin (as per Jesus). Or we can commit sexual sin, and convince ourselves that it is loving, as per our feelings (the boy who has sex with the girl, gives her a disease, and potentially gets her pregnant, and then dumps her two weeks later, even though at the time, he felt 'loving' toward her).

But it is true that when our hearts our truly Godly, we will not commit sinful actions. That is the transformation that God wants us to accomplish.

How do we get our hearts to be pure? The first step is to give up the sinful actions.

If one is committing sinful actions, ones heart is not pure - and is not on track for becoming pure. That's why we need God's loving morality.

With Christian love,

Essodalori

the academic section of the school doesn't necessarily have to reflect Christian views

You must live each day as a Christian - Christ-like. This has nothing to do with school, academics, etc. Christ calls you to live His way - not mine, not the school's, not even your way - His way. He taught us all a prayer - the Our Father - and when you say this prayer you state "Thy will be done."

Handle that.

I don't fuck up their shit

I just love it when "educated" people have to revert to the gutter to get their point across. Almost as good as using your fists to make a point. Fists require the brain to work.

it should be your responsibility as a christian to allow everybody to have their own free will, and not try to persuade them to anything, this is what Satin and his temptors do (Screwtape Letters).

God created us as little replicas of himself, united but distinct. that means that homosexuals are people too that were created by God, they are just different from you. That doesnt mean they are going to hell, or that you are better than them.

Essodalori,
scroll up real quick, I responded to your response to my first post... interested in your response, but its lost in the fast paced posting :)

-Chip

"And I know that if I love someone, I don't fuck up their shit."

--

I'm glad I don't send my kids to your school, Daniel.

Love is wanting about what is truly best for the other.

But as for your shit, it's already fucked up. Sorry to tell you the truth. I do so out of love.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

The Catholic Church has been wrong before. They were wrong about Slavery, they were wrong about women's rights, they were wrong about the Holocaust. Are they wrong about homosexuality? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's a sin. But again, the Catholic church is comprised of humans. Humans will never fully understand what God intended when he gave Moses the Ten Commandments. We will never be able to interpret this as exactly what he meant it to mean

whats up daniel

from www.catholic.com:

The rejection of homosexual behavior that is found in the Old Testament is well known. In Genesis 19, two angels in disguise visit the city of Sodom and are offered hospitality and shelter by Lot. During the night, the men of Sodom demand that Lot hand over his guests for homosexual intercourse. Lot refuses, and the angels blind the men of Sodom. Lot and his household escape, and the town is destroyed by fire "because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord" (Gen. 19:13).

Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior. But today, certain homosexual activists promote the idea that the sin of Sodom was merely a lack of hospitality. Although inhospitality is a sin, it is clearly the homosexual behavior of the Sodomites that is singled out for special criticism in the account of their city’s destruction. We must look to Scripture’s own interpretation of the sin of Sodom.

Jude 7 records that Sodom and Gomorrah "acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust." Ezekiel says that Sodom committed "abominable things" (Ezek. 16:50), which could refer to homosexual and heterosexual acts of sin. Lot even offered his two virgin daughters in place of his guests, but the men of Sodom rejected the offer, preferring homosexual sex over heterosexual sex (Gen. 19:8–9). Ezekiel does allude to a lack of hospitality in saying that Sodom "did not aid the poor and needy" (Ezek. 16:49). So homosexual acts and a lack of hospitality both contributed to the destruction of Sodom, with the former being the far greater sin, the "abominable thing" that set off God’s wrath.

But the Sodom incident is not the only time the Old Testament deals with homosexuality. An explicit condemnation is found in the book of Leviticus: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13).

Reinterpreting Scripture

To discount this, some homosexual activists have argued that moral imperatives from the Old Testament can be dismissed since there were certain ceremonial requirements at the time—such as not eating pork, or circumcising male babies—that are no longer binding.

While the Old Testament’s ceremonial requirements are no longer binding, its moral requirements are. God may issue different ceremonies for use in different times and cultures, but his moral requirements are eternal and are binding on all cultures.

Confirming this fact is the New Testament’s forceful rejection of homosexual behavior as well. In Romans 1, Paul attributes the homosexual desires of some to a refusal to acknowledge and worship God. He says, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. . . . Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them" (Rom. 1:26–28, 32).

Elsewhere Paul again warns that homosexual behavior is one of the sins that will deprive one of heaven: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 6:9–10, NIV).

All of Scripture teaches the unacceptability of homosexual behavior. But the rejection of this behavior is not an arbitrary prohibition. It, like other moral imperatives, is rooted in natural law—the design that God has built into human nature.

Natural Law

People have a basic, ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not an animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man. Thus, people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality—that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses that makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

"I Was Born This Way"

Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that they were born that way, making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of by conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcohol. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are inconclusive), the behavior remains unnatural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable; other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" any more than homosexuality is.

The Ten Percent Argument

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior.

But not all common behaviors are acceptable, and even if ten percent of the population were born homosexual, this would prove nothing. One hundred percent of the population is born with original sin and the desires flowing from it. If those desires manifest themselves in a homosexual fashion in ten percent of the population, all that does is give us information about the demographics of original sin.

But the fact is that the ten percent figure is false. It stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey’s subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1,400 of his 5,300 final subjects (twenty-six percent) were convicted sex offenders—a group that by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices.

Furthermore, the ten percent figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped—people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey’s research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990].)

Recent and more scientifically accurate studies have shown that only around one to two percent of the population is homosexual.

The Catholics have a handle on it - but then again, they don't "revise" their theology everytime someone burps.

i say we all forget about God and all that bible nonsense... I think esso should be our new God, it seems as though he knows everything, and he is the only person that is right and all the rest of us should bow down to him...

Your replies only further one of my points. In the midst of an arguement over reform and conservative beliefs, I am criticized on my choice of language. How about rebuttling my points instead of my colloquialisms?

Your replies only further one of my points. In the midst of an arguement over reform and conservative beliefs, I am criticized on my choice of language. How about rebuttling my points instead of my colloquialisms?

TryReality:
The statistics I quote are those diagnosed with AIDS as a result of homosexual acts, drug use, blood transfusion, etc. It is insulting that you consider these manipulated because you do not want to include these FACTS in your reasoning. These are not questions you can skew - just you have AIDS - Have you engaged in any high risk behavior? Well, if anything, some may under-report their homosexual activity.

Also, death certificate do not lie. DEAD is DEAD. You are in some serious denial.

"are you willing to agree with me in that your views values etc., my views values etc., and those of many other people in the world differ greatly as to what is degrading? "

----

Good question, Chip. I scrolled up and got it.

Sure, I agree. One man likes taking heroin, and thinks that's great; one man likes to beat his kids, and thinks that dandy; one man likes to cheat on tests at school and thinks that's swell.

Without God, each person is his own God. And since people are prone to selfishness, unlove, evil, degradation, etc. etc., that is why we need God if we are ever to be lifted up out of those conditions.

Now - here is the important part. If there is truly a loving God, He MUST define for us what is truly good and unselfish and undegrading and unprideful, etc. etc. Why? Because to truly love is to truly want the best for the other. Without defining what the truly best is, you cannot love. Without defining what the truly best is, love is just an irrational (and often fleeting) feeling.

The God of the Bible and of Christianity is one who does indeed truly love, and who truly defines what is truly best for us. But even more - He sent His only son in human form to us to explain to us and model for us precisely what God is getting at (out of His true love).

People are not equipped to define for themselves what is truly best for themselves or others (and very often reject what they believe to be truly best anyway), because they are corrupted with all sorts of selfishness, lusts, prides, temptations to evil - as well as with the fear of not offending. God is, because He is not. Though of course, the more you come close to God, the more you understand why His morality is the most truly loving one, and what God is trying to do in getting us to become like Him.

Yeah?

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

daniel, they arent smart enough to do that... why do you think they keep picking apart our grammar and choices of words.

The fact is, Esso is right - and he usually is because he accepts Tradition and Scripture. the basis of most denominations. And I am sure that once you get to be Esso's age (sorry Esso) you will look back (like we all do) and realize what a jackass you have been. There are two sides to all stories. You children have obviously been exposed to only one. And in this case, the wrong one.

Katherine - what don't you understand about death and disease - both rampant in homosexual behavior. There is no mistake about condemning homosexeual behavior.

why do you think they keep picking apart our grammar and choices of words.

When you get out into "the real world" you will find that grammar and choices of words are extremely important. If you don't, you will either be a rock star or a garbage man.

I suppose if we're being literal, then there's nothing in Leviticus condemning Lesbianism.

Sorry kids. I am tired of arguing with children now. Time to take my Geritol and the dog for a walk.

You are from Florida, what in the heck do you know about this situation besides this article paid for by the McNair family? You are the ones who only know one side, and you continue to argue with us about it. pull your head out of you know where (its the place you keep saying homosexual people like to put stuff) and stop ridiculing this school.

Disease is prevelant in heterosexual promiscuity as well.

Katherine - when homosexuals make up 50% of the AIDS cases and are 3-4% of the population - that is an epidemic! Heterosexual STD have no overwhelming statistics like that.

Dear SAS students:

Your heartfelt responses to the situation the school currently finds itself in is truly exceptional. Being a SAS parent for many years, I'm not at all surprised to see you jump to the school's defense-- with hearts full of love, and a strong desire to defend a place that you respect.

Your posts are eloquent and concise; be proud of the incredible education you are being or have been afforded. Any one of you could blow the average poster on this site off the stage in a monitored debate. The ad hominem attacks against your comments deserve no response-- so please, don't bother.

No matter what you do, say, or demonstrate-- and no matter what the truth is (because the truth is definitely not represented by this article) -- the people who live on these boards will never be convinced we are anything but the antithesis of their definition of what is good and right. There is nothing we can do to change their minds. They are not interested in the truth.

But here is the beautiful thing: we are who we are. We are proud members of a truly fine community, and we know what our school represents, and that we stand true to our principles and beliefs. Be proud of that, and sign off this site forever.

If you won't/can't leave the site behind, create an alias before signing back on (follow the example of the adults who posted before all of you-- and by the way, wouldn't they be toast in our writing classes? Yikes!).

We all need to think about the 'big picture', and concentrate our energies on the overwhelming tragedy that is unfolding in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Follow the example of our school leaders by ignoring these petty arguments, and focusing on the fact that half a million Americans have lost their homes, and are without shelter. Our school is mobilizing to raise funds for our fellow Americans, and we all know what a difference this community will make.

You are all incredible people-- be proud of yourselves, and our school. I am proud of each of you.

Woah man, isn't Geritol a drug? Too bad, I guess your going to hell.

"I say we all forget about God and all that bible nonsense... I think esso should be our new God, it seems as though he knows everything, and he is the only person that is right and all the rest of us should bow down to him..."

---

You can do whatever you want with your life, Student22. But you will likely discover, as so many young people do, that the Bible and God and Christ are all about true love for you, and about helping you to become truly good and Godly, and better than you are now.

As for me, I do know more than you do (which is not surprising, since I am forty some years old).

But rightness does NOT come from me. In the same way, Jesus tells us NOT to call him good. There is only One who is truly good and loving.

You can reject God's love anytime you want. But I assure you with all that I know and understand that such will NOT bring you true happiness or joy; will not make your life easier; will not bring you deep peace in your soul; and will not, of course, enable the possibility of eternal life.

I only say that out of love, Student22. If I didn't try to love you, I wouldn't bother saying such and making you upset.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

P.S. Hey Student22 - I truly hope you have a good and wonderful life, and that I'll meet you in heaven one day. I really mean that.

sasparent: you poor misguided individual. You fail to see the school and the students are not under attack. It is merely your faulty thinking. Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Stoneridge:

I think that you are right about this not being a real student. Perhaps it is Kurt's alter ego or a doppelganger or something. That being said, I fear that his reasoning and lack of knowledge of Scripture is probably all too representative of a student from Saint Andrew’s School. Clearly, they are not receiving much in the way of moral instruction. Nor I would argue, are they developing critical thinking skills. Few students today seem to have the reasoning skills to recognize the red herrings and specious arguments that the left uses to confuse most clear-cut issues. It is a shame.

I would argue that few members of the news media have these skills either. How else do you explain how someone like Cindy Sheehan has monopolized news coverage for the last month without being critically questioned on anything. She finally met her match a few days ago on NPR of all places. The interviewer asked her some salient questions and then had good follow-up questions when she gave silly pat answers. She had an absolute meltdown. She hung up after about ten minutes of what was to have been a half hour segment. She became very flustered because she had never before faced an intelligent questioning of her opinions. The interviewer was not out to get her. He just asked questions about her prior actions and statements that any reasonable reporter would have.

Too frequently we see someone say outlandish things and either not be questioned at all, or be superficially questioned, give a scripted response, and then face no other follow up. I would be tempted to blame it on our cultural shift toward the ECUSA-backed notion that everyone is entitled to an opinion and every opinion is equally valid. I would be tempted to do that, but I can't. I observe that this is a one-way street. If you are advocating, as Cindy Sheehan is, that we should unilaterally disarm in the face of international terrorism, you will face no serious questioning. If you are advocating in favor of Christian values or in favor of the rights of the unborn, everybody and his brother will be poised to rip you a new one.

Students today don’t receive training in critical thinking. They are too prone to accept assertions that are unsupported by reason. Unfortunately, many of them will not improve in this area as they get older. You only need to look at the telegenic thirty-somethings that make up much of the low to middle rungs within the broadcast media's hierarchy, to see that critical thinking is not a prerequisite for the position.

Likewise, you see on this website, that some people believe that truth and their opinions are the same. Their opinion may not have any evidence to support it, but they cling to it dearly. They will make an assertion such as, “people in biblical times didn’t understand about sexual orientation, they assumed that everyone was heterosexual and that the prohibition against homosexual acts should be applied to heterosexuals practicing homosexual acts but not to homosexuals practicing homosexual acts. They are just living out the nature that God gave them.”

That is a statement of opinion. It may be true and it may be false. In order to know, we would have to analyze it against available knowledge. The available knowledge doesn’t directly invalidate this opinion. I’m not willing to claim to know what was in people’s minds back then. I can’t disprove this theory based on that. Since I am not a mind reader, I can only go by what they wrote down.

What they wrote down gives us no indication if they had any knowledge about sexual orientation; it just emphatically prohibits homosexual acts. We are at a stopping place. The idea that homosexuality was condemned in biblical times and has continued to be condemned by the church up until the present is confirmed by the historical record. The idea that this prohibition should only be applied to people with heterosexual orientation remains neither proven nor disproved. In all pursuits of science and social science, the onus is generally on the person with the new theory to provide proof before it is widely accepted. If you hope to debunk a long and widely held belief, you had better be prepared to offer proof. The proponents of this theory offer none. While I cannot know with scientific certainty that their assertions are false, I do know that they have not offered enough (or any) evidence that would convince a reasonable person that they were right and that everyone who had come before them was wrong.

Knowledge advances by a process of conceiving new explanations for observable occurrences, and then testing them. Those proved reasonable are incorporated into the body of knowledge. Those that cannot be proven, either are discarded as false, or hang around waiting for some new knowledge that may prove or disprove them later.

Unfortunately for revisionists, there may be no way of knowing for sure how God feels about this issue until they face their day of judgment. The only knowledge that we have on this issue says that it was proscribed in the Old Testament and that Jesus reiterated this proscription in the New Testament. It is the revisionist’s unsubstantiated opinion that “God is doing a new thing.” I hope for their sake that they are right. I would think that the safer course of action would be to follow the rules that we know until we receive some definitive proof that they have been superseded.

It is indeed a daring course to assume that you know better than everyone who came before you. Sometimes these daring people are proven right and are regarded as visionaries. More frequently, they crash and burn. It is the ultimate in hubris to lead an entire denomination away from sound doctrine and into uncharted territory, without knowing where you will ultimately end up.

I know that some of our revisionist friends will point out that Jesus did something very similar to this. He rewrote the established knowledge of his day. It is wise to point out however, that Jesus teaching was more an extension of the existing Jewish belief than it was a refutation of it. His message of social justice was very much in keeping with the teaching of many of the prophets that had come before. He was calling God’s people back into the true relationship that they were meant to have with God, not inventing something completely new. It can also be argued of course, that since he is the Son of God, that he had a pretty good idea how all of this was going to end up. I don’t have much faith that Frank Griswold is equally omniscient.

"Disease is prevelant in heterosexual promiscuity as well."

---

Yes it is, Katherine. However, the average homosexual man is nineteen times as likely to have a venereal disease as is a non-homoseuxal, and lives, on average, twenty to thirty years less. Over half of the people infected with AIDs in the US are homosexuals, despite their making up 2-3% of the population, and another big percentage goes to bisexuals. There are reasons for all of this that are not hard to figure out; however, you will not be taught them in your school.

I assure you; God does not want this for anyone. His morality is given out of love.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

I'd like to see non-biased, definitive evidence that states that.

And I'd also like to point out that many people if questioned in a study would not admit to being homosexual. It is a sensitive subject for many people who are.

One of you says that Roman Catholocism must be correct because 1.2 billion people believe in it. Yet another one of you says that even though 10% of people are homosexual, that doesn't mean that it is okay. So according to the second opinion, Roman Catholics aren't correct. Right? Okay, that's what I thought.

"I'd like to see non-biased, definitive evidence that states that. "

---

Sure, check out the mountain of statistics posted on such things by the Center for Disease Control.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

Students today don’t receive training in critical thinking

Correct. After being on the debate team (varsity) in both high school and college, I had to be able to debate both sides of the argument This has been of outstanding help during my life - leads to clear and concise thinking and judgment - couldn't have gone through law school without it - oh well, someone once said "hope springs eternal" - the other point that comes to mind is that these children someday will have children of their own - payback is a bitch.

"One of you says that Roman Catholocism must be correct because 1.2 billion people believe in it. Yet another one of you says that even though 10% of people are homosexual, that doesn't mean that it is okay. So according to the second opinion, Roman Catholics aren't correct. Right? Okay, that's what I thought."

---

A nice example of using illogic to debate illogic.

Essodalori

Student 22, who stands by my side?

I know the scriptures very well. I spent most of my formative years in a fundamentalist christian school. I went to SAS after I moved. My other school taught that homosexuality was evil and bad. Having a differeing oppinion doesn't mean that I lack knowledge of the scriptures, I know these verses. There are parts of the bible I chose to interpret differently. I'm still not sure what I believe concerning some things, I'm young and still forming my opinions. Again, how can you condemn homosexuals and not pork-eaters?

I'm going to go have some bacon. Will my soul be eternally damned? Should I repent?

Good night all.

Here's a last thought for our erstwhile students:

Where does truth come from? Or is the only truth that there is no truth? If so, where did that truth come from?

With much Christian love,

Essodalori

"Again, how can you condemn homosexuals and not pork-eaters?"

Katherine once again brings up such a good point. Before anyone else tries to bash SAS, lesbians, or gays, someone should answer this question.

ok

I enjoyed talking to you essodalori, i really mean that, maybe ill come in here sometime and talk with you again, goodnight

Well, now that that the only intelligence on the "other team" (essodalori) has left the debate, I'm going to bed. I really wish this debate could have stayed on topic. I might have been satisfied, rather than annoyed.

The fact that some would not admit to homosexuality means the numbers would actually be larger.

SAS students:

Please scroll up and read my post-- I pulled it off to edit and it was 'upstreamed'.

SAS parent

Katherine,

I am surprised that you feel your question has not been answered. If this is a subject that interests you - I mean your particular argument - I suggest this book: What God Has Made Clean........If you can eat prawns, why is gay sex wrong? This little booklet was written by John Richardson. It may be hard to find, here in the US. It was published in the UK in 2003 by: Good Book Company.

Warfield

To all students, parents, teachers, principles, and staff of SAS:

Regardless of anyone's opinion, the McNairs withdrew their financial support from your school. They had every right to do so. In their understanding, SAS failed to comply with its own standards.

You lose.

One poster who presented him/her-self as a SAS parent mentioned something about not changing people's minds, that the people who regularly post on this site aren't interested in the truth. What is the truth, if all truth is relative?

Yes, I suppose it's true that your school is going to teach what it thinks is best and that if someone doesn't like it, they can send their kids someone else. And you know what else? If the people who support your school financially don't like it, they can send their money somewhere else, too.

Fair enough.

"I know the scriptures very well. I spent most of my formative years in a fundamentalist christian school. I went to SAS after I moved. My other school taught that homosexuality was evil and bad. Having a differeing oppinion doesn't mean that I lack knowledge of the scriptures, I know these verses. There are parts of the bible I chose to interpret differently. I'm still not sure what I believe concerning some things, I'm young and still forming my opinions. Again, how can you condemn homosexuals and not pork-eaters?"

Beautifully put. I have a similar story (which makes me wonder who you are/which katherine or other name?). My formitive years were spent similarly. I went to Regents (the school suggested to the McNairs in the article) for 9 years, and I thought exactly like the pro-mcnair people here did. I lived the entire schpiel, I had books of the Bible memorized, I walked the walk and talked the talk. My acquaintance with the Bible is quite close, even though I don't identify with a religion anymore.
I think that it's unfair for them to be holding us to such a low standard, simply because we're young, relatively. To discredit any of our life experience and chalk it up as "dumb youth" is quite disturbing to read.
As of right now, I am 16 years old. Most humans live to be, I don't know, 80 years old? That's almost a fourth of my life that I have lived so far. I don't believe that knowledge is completely withheld from us for all this time, I believe knowledge is acquired through experience. In this way, sheltering children will only keep them as children.
When do we reach this ultimate knowledge that they claim to have? Every day that I wake up alive I hope to be just a little bit wiser. How can that be denied? Honestly, I can't seem to abide by the degradation that the people we seem to be debating hold us to. "I don't fight with children". You're just kids. What you have to say doesn't matter since you're young. Like I said, if we're old enough to vote and die for our country, shouldn't we be given a little more credit? Or should we raise the age to be a legal adult? Is 18 not old enough?

Slavery was encouraged in the Bible (in Ephesians, too lazy to look it up), but slavery has been abolished and is considered a moral outrage.
The Crusades were justified as a religious conquest, and now modern society looks at it as a massive horror and tragedy.
Pork, shellfish, figs, and different foods combined in non-kosher fashions used to be a big no-no according to the Old Testament, but now these foods are eaten merrily by Christians around the world.
Women were told to be subjects to their husbands (again, look in Ephesians) and submit to him - now women and men are (in a perfectly politically correct society) equals. Is this morally wrong? Will this condemn society to hell?

After all, homosexuality was condemned in the Bible, but like many things, things in the Bible have been cast aside before for social progress. I have many GLTB friends and I cannot even begin to say that any of them are wrong or evil. In fact, some of the most internally beautiful people I know are GLTB.

My dear friend in Ohio has studied the scriptures quite a lot, and he wrote something that I found rather persuasive when it comes to references in the Bible about homosexuality. While we're on this note, I might as well post what he wrote. Thanks for listening.

----

The New Testament:
Romans 1:26-27 does condemn it, but it is the only place in the New Testament that it is singled out for condemnation. However, in this passage, the following assumptions are clear: homosexuality was associated with cultic prostitution, was a choice rather than innate, and was a manifestation of insatiable lust. Most importantly in this case, it was assumed that homosexual sex was a result of idolatry. Such assumptions are, at best, questionable today.

There are two other places that are thought to refer to homosexuality (I Cor 6:9-10, I Tim 1:8-11), but if you look at the original Greek text, they may not actually be condemning homosexuality at all. Both of these passages are a laundry list of unacceptable behaviors, and what is thought to be homosexuality is never singled out or emphasized in any way.

Specifically, in the Corinthians passage, 'male prostitutes' and 'sodomites' are mentioned in the list. Male prostitutes is translated from the word malakoi, which means, literally, 'soft.' When applied to a male, it can mean 'fat,' 'weak' (could mean physically or morally weak), 'effeminate,' or 'female weakness,' - it never specifically means the homosexual.

Sodomites is translated from the word arsenokotai. The problem with this word is that it is found in very few places in any other Greek texts, ancient or no, so translators actually don't know what it means. However, because of juxtaposition (it's right next to what is usually translated as male prostitute, who would probably be the passive partner), it's translated as 'one who goes to bed with a male' and is interpreted as the active partner in sex. This logic is faulty because no where else in the passage is juxtaposition used to link two words in the passage. After all, fornicators and idolaters are together, as are the greedy and drunkards. Thieves and robbers, which you would expect to occur next to each other if juxtaposition implied a relation, occur at the middle and the end of the list, respectively. So clearly, translating arsenokotai as 'sodomites' simply because it's next to what is believed to be male prostitutes is not logical.

Furthermore, when arsenokotai appears in other Greek texts, it's used in the context of exploitation. So it's likely that what the Bible passage is opposed to is using sex - heterosexual or homosexual - for exploitation, rather than being opposed to homosexual sex. Again, it's usually translated as being against homosexual sex because of how malakoi is translated.

So what we can gather from the Corinthians passage is that sex that is coerced or purchased is wrong, which clearly does not apply to all homosexual acts.

The Timothy passage is similar: a laundry list of people who won't make it into heaven. Again, sodomites is translated from arsenokotai, and is probably referring to those who use sex to exploit.

So, as such, I don't think it is logical or valid to invoke any of these three passages in order to condemn homosexuality.

Looking at the Old Testament:
Warnings against homosexuality are found in Lev 18:22, 20:13 in the Holiness Code. The deal with homosexuality being condemned was that it was thought that homosexual sex made men infertile, so therefore it threatened procreation, which was clearly important at the time when the Jews were merely a tribe and not an established people.

In addition, homosexual sex is condemned along with eating pork, cursing your parents, consulting mediums or wizards, or having sex with a woman while she was on her period. Christians today clearly don't live by the old Jewish holiness code, so it is wrong and illogical to selectively condemn and discriminate against homosexuality while ignoring other things in the Holiness Code.

---------

Someone earlier said that "I was confused". That very well may be the case, but my current position is that just about everyone is confused. We'll never really know the answers, and that's okay. I love the life I live, and I'm so grateful to be alive. There are so many bigger problems in the world to focus on than one tiny problem in one tiny school in a far away city from you. You'll probably never meet any of us. There's a genocide going on in Sudan. There's a hurricane knocking New Orleans into the ocean, just about. People are murdered and raped and silenced every day - it happens. The most we can do, I believe, is to love those around us the way they need to be loved and strive for inner harmony. Sorry for the multiple long posts, and congratulations if you actually read through it all.

In love,

Ava

shlisten: again, I state: Love the sinner, hate the sin. I am not confused. I don't believe Esso is, or Damascus, or lkwells, or many of the other regular posters on this site. I have strong faith. I have studied and studied theology under some of the best. I have read extensively. Homosexual acts are against nature. Homosexual acts are against God. We were put here to procreate. We are created as Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I have many, many friends who are homosexuals. I love them dearly and they know it. They alone have to answer to God. But as a Christian I cannt condone what they DO. We are compelled to love all of Gods creatures but we are not compelled to love unnatural acts. Society should not dictate to God. Christians do not have to move with the times. It is not old-fashioned to believe that some things are against nature or against God. I am sure all of us "old-timers" will pray for the Spirit to clear your heads - listen to that little voice within you, it is usually right.

PS: it is not just a tiny problem - but it is a moral one

Ava,

With all due respect, I am very familiar with Regents School of Austin. I have great sympathy for what you endured. Nevertheless, each and every one of your arguments have, to my mind, been answered by Dr. Robert Gagnon. You seem to have an open mind - try his book, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice" (2001). You, too, may find him persuasive.

Warfield

Orthoduckx - what if the little voice in my head is not telling me what it is telling you?
I believe we are hearing two different things. I am not going to argue with you anymore, for I think we come from angles that will not be reconciled. You certainly won't be persuaded by what I, the dumb 16 year old, will have to say, and similarly, I feel steadfast in what I believe right now. I used to believe like you, but things have changed.
Bless you, I'm going to bed. I have school tomorrow at the wonderful school you mentioned in the article. Lucy Nazro is wonderful - one of the most Godly, love-filled people I know. She amazes me.
May we all have the ability to see the world in love, but also objectively.

"grant me the serenity to accept the things i can't change, the courage to change the things i can, and the wisdom to know the difference..."

Student:

While your claim that we don't have standing to question what is taught at Saint Andrew's School may be true in a strict legal sense, we do have a right to be concerned about what is being taught at a supposedly Episcopal school. When Saint Andrew's School advocates in favor of actions that are forbidden in the Bible, anyone who is a Christian has a right to be concerned.

As for some of your other assertions about other Old Testament rules that we no longer follow, you do realize that most of these were superseded in the teachings of the New Testament. Things such as the dietary code and circumcision or non-circumcision were all addressed in the New Testament. The same cannot be said about the Old Testament prohibition against fornication and homosexual conduct. Jesus reasserted the Jewish moral code (which would have included these things) personally in the Gospels.

I have to say that I myself am not personally opposed to students at Saint Andrew's School learning a lot about homosexuality. I think it is a good thing. My fear however, is that the school is not providing you with a balanced look. Is this book, BrokeBack Mountain, accompanied by other sources that talk about the physical and mental health issues that affect homosexuals? The lifespan of homosexual males is significantly shorter on average than their heterosexual counterparts. Rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, and suicide are also substantially higher among homosexuals. In fact, deviance in sexual practices is highly correlated with all other forms of social deviance. Our concern is not that the school is talking about homosexuality, but perhaps that it is advocating it as (1) an acceptable Christian lifestyle and (2) a lifestyle that is generally safe and healthy. While gay rights activist would have you believe that most problems that homosexuals experience are caused by forces that are external to the lifestyle (discrimination for example), there is ample evidence that many, but certainly not all, of these problems are in fact intrinsic to the lifestyle.

No one is telling you not to look into issues of sexual orientation. Just try to be discerning in what you accept as fact. You should take into account a wide variety of opinions and use critical reasoning to sort through what you believe. Don't be overly swayed by the advocacy of your teachers or by the opinions of your peers. It is very convenient for teenagers in hormone overdrive to want to accept that biblical moral norms no longer apply. If the biblical prohibition against homosexuality can be ignored, why not the prohibition against fornication?

I'm only about twenty-five years older than you are. I came of age in the late seventies. When I was a kid, I knew virtually nobody who had divorced parents. In between the time when I was a kid and now, the Episcopal Church and most other Protestant churches decided to disregard biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage. How many of your fellow students at an elite school such as St. Andrew's, now have two parents (on their first marriage) who are still together? Do you think that this is a positive or negative development? The fact is that when churches arbitrarily change doctrine, there are real life consequences. I would argue that kids your age have a much harder time growing up than I did because of the lack of stability in families.

When I was your age, I thought exactly as you do now (if I thought at all). I may not have followed the teachings of the Christian faith, but I am glad that they were there. When you are led astray, they provide you somewhere to return to. In fifteen years or so, if you have your own children, you may feel the same. The danger in what is occurring in the Episcopal Church today is that all moral standards are being eroded. People who want to do what is right are being led astray. It is one thing to know what the rules are and to decide to ignore them. God gave us free will and we can do that. It is another not to know what the rules are. You can't follow them if you wanted to because you don't know what they are.

Although the hyperbole on this website is sometimes extreme, rest assured that the people here only want what is best for you. They are advocating against homosexual sex and sex outside of marriage because they believe that is what is required of Christians. They also believe that God gave the moral code to his people to protect them from themselves. One only needs to look at the AIDS pandemic around the world (which incidentally, affects many heterosexuals) to recognize that there might be some wisdom in following biblical standards of morality.

I've tried to write this to you in a respectful tone. If you are an upperclassman at St. Andrew's, you are certainly on the verge of adulthood and probably quite intelligent. All I am asking is that you be open to both sides of this argument. While it is easy to be swayed by the arguments in favor of gay rights, especially if you have gay acquaintances or relatives, there are other arguments. Be a critical thinker, weigh them all. Also be open to having your opinions evolve over time. I was exactly where you are now when I was your age, and watching life has made my thinking shift. It may do the same with you.

Also understand that there is a difference in how we relate to homosexual people as individuals and how we feel about homosexuality in general. Most guys my age know of friends or co-workers who are committing adultery. It is possible to condemn their actions without issuing a blanket condemnation of them. We are required to get along with all types of people, that doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to approve of everything that they do.

Double Post

student writes; """
what makes the laws about homosexuality still count while many others have been disregarded?"""

Could be because it is still condemned in the New Testament by St. Paul in Romans and First Corinthians for a start, whereas much of the Levitical prohibitions are not, such as all food is clean. However, since the Episcopal church is not Bible believing, I suppose it is a moot point. If you feel homoerotic sexual relations are acceptable explain why the anal canal does not function a a vagina and tears so easily, allowing the introduction of pathogens into the body. The influx of posters from St. Andrews supporting homoeroticism reflects just how low an education system can sink to.

The parents involved have every right to dictate just how and where their wealth is used. They, at least of all, not you or anyone else, earned it. You are right in that they can take their children out of the school, along with their wallets, as many have done and are are still doing in the ECUSA.

Oh yes, the disclaimer of VirtueOnline is the Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism. If you want someone to agree with you other than Frehao, Kurt, or steve, I would suggest visiting "Everyvoice Network" where the only voices allowed are liberal.

Oh yes, the disclaimer of VirtueOnline is the Voice of Orthodox Anglicanism. If you want someone to agree with you other than Frehao, Kurt, or steve, I would suggest visiting "Everyvoice Network" where the only voices allowed are liberal.

shlisten: I don't consider you dumb. I consider you inexperienced. I consider you impressionable. I consider you malleable. Your conscience will tell you right from wrong if you listen. Again, it is Love the Sinner, hate the sin. You know you were put her to love, honor and serve God. God's purpose for you is to procreate - it is "natural" - God created us man and woman for that reason. We are to love each other as man and woman for God's purpose. We are to love our neighbor as ourself. But, we are not to fornicate. Homosexual behavior is fornication. Real simple. I am sure your headmistress is wonderful. However, you are not getting the total picture. Mark Twain had made a statement once that went something like this: When I was 14 I thought my father was really stupid. When I got to be 21 I couldn't believe how much he learned in 7 years. My youngest child is approximately your age. My oldest is 8 years older. The difference in maturity is palpable. The difference is experience is incredible. You have been exposed to only part of the equation. Listen to God. He is there for You if you let Him in.

These young adults have all imbibed deeply of the "Spirt of this Age" - Relativism. They have been taught that the only true virtue is tolerance of everything except the existence of objective truth

Warfield you are correct. The have learned corrupted "Truth" at the hands of their educators - which reminds me of a saying a good friend of mine likes to use: who is the greater fool - the fool or the one who follows the fool?

Dear Students of St. Andrews,

I have been reading some of your posts for a while with some shock at the relativisim in your e-voices. It is truly a sign of the times when some of you think that homosexuality is not a sin without saying it in so few words. Esso, Ortho, Joe and many of the regulars (seniors - sorry guys) on this site post very good comments that should be heeded. The ECUSA is headed to a lost cause. As a matter of fact I have not heard any one of you give a convincing arguement as to why homosexuality and the pushing of the Gay agenda is correct via a book, movie or otherwise. I suspect its probably because either your arguments are very weak or they are non existent. It's all good and well to defend your school but many of your posts are incorrect. However, you have youth on your side, and I pray that your thinking and reasoning may change with time through the grace of God, for at this point it is surely distorted and I'm not accusing anyone specifically. As I often tell some of my undergrad students who are older than you guys in private conversations, if you want to know what God asks, wants of us or wants us to do, we only need to looking at what the world is telling us to say and do, and think and act the opposite.

God Bless

BHTech

Student82 posted: Well, now that that the only intelligence on the "other team" (essodalori) has left the debate, I'm going to bed. I really wish this debate could have stayed on topic. I might have been satisfied, rather than annoyed.

No, you would not have been satisfied. At your age tolerance is not yet a virtue. And, it was not a debate - the revisionists have not presented a credible argument.

We weren't "supporting Homoeroticism," we were defending our school. It's not required reading. The book is optional. There is (or so I've been told) only one scene in the story that is "homoerotic," the story has won multiple literary awards, and there are worse books. It seems almost impossible to pick up a new book, almost regardless of author or storyline, that doesn't contain at least one sexual scene. The teachers are not promoting homosexuality or heterosexuality, they are reading a book. And it's not even required.

Dear Katherine

I was about to run off to bed when I thought I should reply to what you said. Regardless of whether the book is optional or not, its won multiple literary awards or not, etc, the topic at hand and the agenda behind such a book is not in your interests or in future generations interest. It flies in the face of God will for mankind that men and women are meant for each other as evidenced by scripture and 2000+ years of history. Homosexuality is inherently wrong in four words.

We can debate this if you like, but somethings are right and somethings are wrong. The arguement brought forward by some that we should never judge or say things are wrong is also incorrect when it comes to admonishing and teaching others, for that is how were as humans most often learn. Classic example is if one parents say don't touch the stove because its hot, we think we know better and we proceed to touch the stove only to get burn and learn our lesson. This is more of an example of saying that something is wrong rather than judging, but it still serves to bring across the point, that when we don't listen to Gods word, inevitably we end up paying for it one way or the other, e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah. You can see where I am coming from.

In summary the point I am making is that the subtle message or saying or thinking that no harm can come from a simple book, or movie, etc is one that the devil would like us all to believe, when in truth and fact it violates Gods laws terribly.

God Bless

BHTech

MasonH:

I think that you should be a little more tolerant of the McNair's concerns. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are right, but they are certainly raising a valid concern. While I don't believe that the school should be censoring any points of view, neither do I think that they should adopt a one-sided advocacy for a particular point of view. This is especially true if that point of view is contradictory to the moral tradition on which the school was founded.

I have no issue with this book being optional reading. If this is part of a balanced reading list that presents all sides of this argument, I think that is great. Experience has told me however, that in places where books such as BrokeBack Mountain are used, the presentation is frequently far from balanced.

Just as the orthodox people who post to this website need to guard against intolerance of others views, you should do the same. Especially at your age. You should be completely open to all viewpoints and critically evaluate them. There is time enough for you to become rigid in your positions, there is no reason to start out that way.

I would strongly recommend to all of the students from Saint Andrew's School a book by Allen Bloom called The Closing of the American Mind. It is not a recent book; I think that it was published in around 1987 or 1988. It is however a very good one. It is kind of difficult for me to describe what it is about in a relatively short space, but if you are a thoughtful and inquiring person, you will find it interesting, even if you do not agree with all parts of it. Allen Bloom was a professor at the University of Chicago. This book is not at all theological. It is more about how we learn to think. Its central thesis is that not only does modern education not provide us with the answers to life's questions; it doesn't even provide us with the questions.

I have to say that I am gratified to see so many students choosing to post to this site. Even if it is because you are pissed off. Exposure to points of view other than your own is the first step toward growth. It doesn't mean that you have to accept everything that you hear. A thoughtful person should however, be able to dispassionately articulate the other person's point of view and then give a reasoned response why they either agree or disagree with it.

It is not a reasoned response to tell the McNairs to pull their kids out of school if they don't approve of the curriculum. I'm sure that St. Andrew's costs a fortune to attend now (it was fairly expensive when I lived in Texas during the 1980's and I'm sure it is much higher now). The people who are paying the bills do have the same right to have an opinion as the people whose salaries that they pay. Does that mean that their opinion should prevail? Not necessarily. It does, however mean, that they have a right to be heard.

Double Post

Double Post

BHTech: Well stated. Subtle is insidious, pervasive - creeps in - evil is very subtle - and can often lead to a false sense of security - now I am shutting down the computer!

Yes I agree fully with you Orthoduckx. This is one of multiple ways evil works.

I too am shutting down the computer. Have a good night.

God Bless

BHTech

Student82:

If you would bother to read some of the other posts, instead of just your own, you will see that it has been answered numerous times.

I'll answer it briefly here. The Old Testament dietary code that included the prohibition against eating pork was superseded by the teaching of the New Testament. Conversely, the Old Testament prohibitions against fornication and homosexual acts were reiterated in the New Testament.

That is how we are able to differentiate between these things. If you were a little more familiar with the Bible, you wouldn't even have to ask this question. If you are going to take such a confrontational tone, you ought to at least make sure that your point can't be easily refuted.

Double Post

TryReality:

You are rather imperceptive. No one said that God hates sinners, they said that God hates sin. We are all sinners and fall short of God's will for us. That does not mean that because no one is perfect, that we shouldn't try to do what is right.

Your post was filled with other dopey statements that are too numerous to list.

I would suggest that you are not in a very good position to evaluate whether gay sex is dangerous or not. Having very little life experience, you probably have never known anyone who died from AIDS or who had their health diminished and life cut short by Hepatitis. There are ample statistics out there about the health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle. Start by looking at some of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research studies. The fact that you haven't familiarized yourself with the facts doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Additionally, don't assume that this is all about gay sex. It isn't. Christian teaching forbids all sex outside of marriage. This isn't specifically an attack on homosexuals, it is an attack on immorality in general.

Double Post

Try Reality Says:

You all claim that the school is not enforcing any Episcopal beliefs. We meet every day for a chapel service and do immeasurable community service. We are also, in fact, required to take a religious studies course senior year. But for the most part, the academic section of the school doesn't necessarily have to reflect Christian views. If that is the case, goodbye sciences. The Bible defies science in many, many places. English class is the same way. We don't study the Bible in English class, we study great literature. So this literature might very well have questionable material. But we are high school students - Senior high school students - and we are mature enough to handle it.

Of course the school is not enforcing Episcopal beliefs. I imagine that many of the students are not Episcopalians or Anglicans. It should however, at least be presenting them, which I would argue it is not.

You also disparage the Bible and say that you only study great works of literature. That comment is kind of indicative of ignorance. The Bible is the best selling book of all time (even beats Harry Potter) and is considered a great work of literature. In addition, a certain level of familiarity with the Bible is necessary to understand other great works of literature. Shakespeare is riddled with references that only make sense if you have a bit of familiarity with the Bible. The same is true for most of the other classics. Christianity had a profound influence on most classic European and American literature. One can not be culturally literate if they aren't at least superficially knowledgeable about the Bible. Unfortunately, most people your age, even from as fine a school as I know St. Andrew's is, lack this cultural literacy.

Ava:

Don't automatically associate someone disagreeing with your point of view as being hateful. I can't speak for everyone who posts here, but believing that homosexuality is proscribed by the Bible doesn't mean that you have animosity toward homosexuals. I know that sometimes people post some strident stuff here, myself included, usually in response to some very intolerant post by one of our liberal regulars (Steve, Kurt, Frehao). Don't take that to mean that the general tone here is hateful. This is a blog. Many people respond in hast and not always thoughtfully.

I would like to commend the work that the Saint Andrew's School community does in Austin. I'm sure that it is very helpful. Helping others is a very important part of discipleship. It is not however, the only part. You will find that in a lot of cases conservatives will emphasize personal morality while liberals will emphasize service. The fact is that both are required. You cannot do one and not the other.

There is a common thread through many of the student posts that I think to some degree reflect a lack of familiarity with the Bible. One of them concerns the dietary law. It is frequently trotted out by people who are arguing in favor of homosexuality. The Old Testament prohibitions against eating pork and other things were superseded by teachings in the New Testament. There are a number of areas where Christianity differs from the orthodox Judaism from which it traces its origins. When there is something in the New Testament that contradicts something in the Old Testament, Christians generally find the New Testament teaching to be authoritative.

Likewise on the slavery argument. The Bible never really endorses slavery, it at best tolerates it. I would encourage you to read Philemon in the New Testament. It is only a couple of pages long. Slaves are encouraged to get their freedom if they can. The main point of it however is that it is more important to worry about not being a slave to sin than it is to worry about your physical freedom. Slavery was a fact of life during biblical times. Early Christians accepted it as an institution but advocated in favor of treating your slaves as you would your family and encouraged Christians to consider freeing slaves. It is a misnomer to say that New Testament Christianity endorses slavery, although there have certainly been people in history who attempted to use the Bible to make that point.

It is also wrong to argue that Christianity condones ill treatment of women. In fact, Christianity was the most influential institution in improving the treatment of women. In Jesus time, Jewish custom with regard to women was not much different than conservative Muslim custom is today. Jesus early followers were really some of the first people to view women as essentially of equal value to men. While they did conceive of them having somewhat different roles in society and in the early church, Christianity was a very progressive force with regard to the rights of women. Judaism eventually came to reflect much of this as well because of the Jewish Diaspora living in predominantly Christian Europe. It was only in places where Islam came to become the majority in society that women continued to be held back.

One other area where I think you are slightly off track is this notion of radical welcome. While it is true that Jesus reached out to people who were somewhat off-limits in Jewish society, it is a mistake to think that he was accepting of all kinds of behavior. Just as Jesus stepped in to save the women who was going to be stoned for adultery, he dismissed her with an admonition to go forth and sin no more. That is the part of the story that the radical welcome people tend to leave out. Jesus was welcoming of all people, but he wasn't one of these touchy-feely self-affirming types. The truth is that he was kind of a hard-ass. Nobody preached more about the idea of there being sheep and goats, or wheat and chaff, or trees that bore good fruit versus trees that bore bad fruit. He was very big on emphasizing that not many would know the Kingdom of God. He never said that following him was going to be easy.

There were two key components to his ministry. In one of them, he had a strong message of social justice. This was very consistent with the message that earlier prophets had put forth. It emphasized the importance of caring for your fellow man as a part of serving God. I would say that this is probably the most important part of the New Testament.

He also said that he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He reinforced much of the Jewish moral code in his teaching. Although he doesn't speak specifically to homosexuality, he speaks out very strongly against sexual sin. You hear very little about sin in today’s Episcopal Church, but Jesus talked about it all the time. It was the second major theme of his ministry. Jesus came to call God's wayward people back to him. He was totally about dieing unto sin and being born again. It is very wrong to suggest that he was laying out the unconditional welcome mat. He welcomed all types of people, but he certainly did not endorse all forms of conduct. That is really one of the big differences between people who disagree on this issue. One group sees Jesus as affirming people just as they are, and one group sees Jesus transforming people's sinful lives. Most of the people who post here are in the latter group.

At any rate, I am glad to see that the students from Saint Andrew's are posting here. It is good to see that you are paying attention to what is going on. I thought pretty much exactly as you do when I was your age (about twenty-five years ago). Time and life experience has a way of changing our focus. Winston Churchill once said that if you are not a liberal when you are young, then you haven't got a heart, and if you are not a conservative when you are old, then you haven't got a brain. I guess that I find that I agree with that now, although I don't know that I did when I was your age.

Ava:

I enjoyed reading several of your long posts. You seem like a thoughtful person. I hope that I don't appear to be condescending towards you. That certainly isn't my intention. I would however say that we do change our opinions over time. Experience is sometimes a pretty hard teacher.

I was going to comment on the information from your friend from Ohio. That is actually a pretty common justification that you see popup. I guess part of the problem that I have with it is that it supposes to know what people were thinking when they wrote something. Unless there is clear documentary evidence that they meant something different than what they appear to say, it is usually safest to go with the most plausible meaning. It is like in science where you have Occam's Razor. If there are multiple explanations of a phenomenon, go with the one that is most simple and plausible. In medicine, they say that when you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras. Meaning if you have a set of symptoms, rule out the common maladies before you decide that it is something exotic.

The problem that I see with this revisionist theory is that it supposes that we know more about the meaning of a translation than the guy doing the translating. The people who translated these documents between Aramaic and Greek and between Greek and Latin were fluent speakers of those languages. They were also aware of the culture that prevailed at the time that the translation was made. Why does some liberal theologian in 2005 know more about what people were thinking in 300 A.D. than a monk or theologian in 300 A.D.?

The other problem with this new theory is that it goes against the historical record. There is a continuum of homosexuality being prohibited that started long before the Christian era and has extended to the present day. In order for me to believe this new theory, I would have to believe that the guy who came up with it was smarter than all of the people throughout history who seemed to think it meant something different. It should also be pointed out, that this is a minority opinion even among theologians and linguists of the present era. You have to believe that the majority of learned people today are wrong and that everyone throughout history has been wrong. You also have to examine the motives of the people rendering the opinion. The people who have come to this conclusion are generally supporting gay rights. If you just look at linguists and eliminate the theologians from our study, you will still find that most of the linguists think it means pretty much what it seems to say. The linguists presumably have no stake in it being interpreted one way or the other.

You can pretty well come up with some convoluted explanation for almost anything. More often than not, the simple explanation is the correct one.

I addressed some of your questions about pork, slavery etc. in a response to another one of your posts so I won't do it again here.

I hope that you will continue to post on this site.

It depends on what kind of fun you are talking about. Being joyful is always good. It is hard to think about heaven when you are young. You think you will live forever. You will think about it a little more as your classmates (there will probably be at least one) die in accidents or what have you. Unfortunately, the combination of youth, alcohol and cars will probably result in at least one of your classmates not making it to graduation. It might even be you.

It is also a mistake to believe that being a Christian has to be joyless. The opposite is true. It tends to make everything more joyful. When I summit a mountain, my appreciation for God's creation makes the experience better, not diminished. When it comes right down to it, sin is somewhat over-rated. There is no doubt that sex is an important part of life, but you will discover that sex within marriage is generally more meaningful than sex outside of marriage. The difference is that you have a stake in the person you are with. You also have trust. These things make a difference.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I am not endorsing censorship. What I would oppose is any kind of one-sided advocacy, that only shows part of the story. It is fine to read the story. You should also try to understand why Jews and Christians for the last five thousand years have disapproved of homosexuality.

I get the sense from some of the comments that the students have posted, that they only have been exposed to the pro-gay side of the story. There is definitely a downside to homosexuality. Forget about the moral objections, there are serious health issues.

Male homosexuals have a greatly shortened lifespan from male heterosexuals. This is not my opinion; there are morbidity studies that demonstrate this. Male homosexuals tend to be very promiscuous. This is not surprising. In the male-female relationship, usually the female decides when you will have sex. The males are usually willing. When you have nothing but males involved, there is nobody to put the brakes on things and there is a lot of sex. The number of male homosexuals who have had over a thousand sexual partners is considerable. I remember seeing a study from the 1980's in San Francisco that showed that half of young males in the Castro District had over five hundred sex partners and a lesser but still significant percent (I don't remember the exact number) had over a thousand. When you are having anonymous sex through "Glory Holes" in the men's room, it doesn't really lead to a lot of self-restraint.

Obviously, the more people that you have sex with the more likely you are to pick up diseases. Condoms help but are not foolproof. There is also an increasing number of gay men who don't use them but who rather prefer to "Bareback." Since the advent of cocktails of drugs to fight AIDS, people seem to think that this is an acceptable risk.

Homosexuals also have much higher rates of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and suicide than do heterosexual males. There is a very strong correlation between sexual deviance and all other forms of social deviance. People who don't believe in rules tend to reject all rules, not just some. If being gay is so liberating and joyful, why are the suicide rates so high? One could argue that it is because of persecution but that really doesn't wash. Homosexuality is much more tolerated today than it was a generation ago and the suicide rates are still very high.

There is a lot of rage in homosexuals. You get an inkling of it when you read some of the posts they make to this website. If you think that all is well in the psyche of the gay male, ask one of your Austin homicide detectives what a murder between gay lovers looks like. Whereas your typical domestic violence between heterosexuals usually results in someone being stabbed one or twice, gay murders frequently involve horrific numbers of stab wounds (or bullet wounds) and other mutilation. That is not really the picture of a happy and healthy community.

I don't know what the figures are today, but in the 1970's (before AIDS) the lifespan of a homosexual was about twenty years shorter than a male heterosexual. Back then, it was about fifty years old. That was at a time when about the worst STD you could get was hepatitis. Even with improved medical care and perhaps less promiscuity among homosexuals, I would imagine that there is still a significant difference.

While some people advocate for gay marriage as a means to cut down on promiscuity, it is a mistake to think that gay marriages are monogamous. In the Netherlands, where gay marriage has existed for the longest time, studies based on self-reporting by homosexuals indicate that the average participant in a gay marriage has eleven sex partners a year. These relationships are generally open relationships by mutual agreement of the partners. I would argue that you would find few heterosexual marriages where there was this much outside sex. Marriage is simply not a construct that homosexuals view in the same way as most heterosexuals.

I think that discussing the issue of homosexuality in school is a very good idea. I would simply have to draw the line at a church affiliated school engaging in open advocacy of something that is morally proscribed. It is also inappropriate to present such a stilted image of it that you are giving a false impression. I have had quite a few homosexual co-workers and acquaintances over the years and most of them were very nice people. It is very easy to buy into the notion that they are just like us. In many if not most ways, they are. There is however, a different way of looking at sex and marriage. It is an outlook that I don't think Christians can afford to endorse.

I agree with you that the SAS students have done a fine job of representing the school on this site. Most of them write quite well and I have read a number of thoughtful posts. Some of them have also posted messages with the same kind of knee-jerk responses that you seem to criticize, but they have been in the minority.

I would say however, that although the students express their ideas well, not all of their ideas are completely thought out. Some are merely a list of talking points from the homosexual rights lobby. A great many posts hit on the same issues involving eating pork and slavery, which are easily refuted. There were also several posts where they questioned the accuracy or relevance of some well-known social science research, simply because they had never heard of it. Just because you don't know about something, doesn't make it false.

Overall though, I would have to say that they elevated the level of discourse on the site and I hope that some of them will continue to post. We only have about three resident gay liberals who post to the site frequently. They tend to post a lot of ludicrous, silly and inflammatory stuff that of course leads others to do likewise, and everything spirals down from there. The students did a good job of keeping focused on the issues under discussion. Our regular liberals usually wind up in a tirade over the war in Iraq or over how the West is to blame for too few toilets in Africa. It was refreshing to see people stick to a limited set of defined points and explain their ideas well.

Keep it up, students! You're polemically beating the ethical and theological crap out of these old, right-wing farts!

You're a little smug for someone who hasn't done anything in life other than go to high school. I read some of your posts and they weren't especially thoughtful. Both you and Student82 were great on bravado but rather short on gravitas.

Ava and a couple of other students that I can think of had some stuff that I thought was very good. Has it ever occurred to you that people criticize your posts solely because they lack substance?

Well, I think it's blindingly obvious why someone familiar with Austin wrote in and referred to it as "Little California"...

Philippa

A very good post. We will still disagree about some things but you are clearly a thoughtful young person. I do want you to understand that it is not the homosexual orientation that people are concerned about but rather the actual act of homosexual sex. In fact that is stating it to narrowly, it is really the act of sex outside of marriage.

All people have sex drives that aren't necessarily helpful. How many middle-aged married guys wouldn't like to do the hot seventeen-year-old baby-sitter? We can't help what we are. We can only control what we do.

I understand where you are coming from. You are in a situation that you didn't necessarily choose for yourself, and now you have to deal with it. I'm sure that it isn't easy. People like me aren't here to try and make your life harder, although it may seem that way to you.

We have subscribed to a belief system and we don't get to pick and choose the parts that we follow. Our faith calls on us to love the sinner but reject the sin. I certainly don't believe that you are any less of a child of God than anyone else.

I think that this is an area of discussion where we may have to agree to disagree. We can't really change what we believe. We can be sympathetic to your position but we can't be accepting of your decision to have sex. Don't feel isolated though, we can't be accepting of your heterosexual classmates having sex either. Those are just the rules of the game.

I thought that the attitude of your post was very good. You seemed to recognize that we weren't likely to change our minds on this but you wanted to explain yourself. You did an excellent job of doing it. I think if more people adopted your attitude, that gay tolerance would be greatly helped. I think that most of us here are pretty tolerant of gay people even if we don't accept the behavior. Virtually all of us come in contact with gay people at work, church or socially.

Nobody likes to be criticized over something that they can't change. Just as you can't change your orientation, I can't really change what I believe (and remain true to the faith). If we both accept that fact, there's no reason not to get along. When somebody lights into us and accuses us of being ignorant, intolerant or backward, it is just as hurtful as if someone attacked you for your orientation. When you are an intelligent and well-educated person, and you are criticized for a deeply held belief, it is annoying to say the least. Although many of us have developed a thick skin, we would still prefer not to be disparaged. There are many heated exchanges that occur on this site. Most of them are somewhat half-hearted. Bored people pushing each other’s buttons. I think that if more people modeled themselves after you that things would be a lot more cordial.

At any rate, thanks for posting and good luck.

“Hoo boy, this will be fun! This article oughta get the neo-cons and homophobes riled up. It's like shooting a hive full of bees with a .22. I'm gonna pop some popcorn and watch the show.” –Fr-Steve

“Right on, and God bless you! You have a more mature understanding than many of the ‘adults’ who post here!”–kurtthomas”

“You all have a right to your opinions, regardless of how bigoted and sexist they may be. By the same law, St. Andrew's has a right to teach its students what it chooses. If you don't like it, too bad. Take your child out of the community, then. Just don't expect anyone to care what you say.”–TryReality

“The amount of hate being exchanged here makes me so sad.”–bonnieC

“those of you who have just lashed out at people you don’t know anything about, Mrs. Nazro (a very strong, very admirable, and very respected lady in both the SAS and Austin communities) as well as members of the Board (which includes my father), need to go back to Sunday school.”–lauren

“Like Bonnie, I feel that the hate being exchanged here is completely uncalled for.”–shlisten

“If you dont want your student to read a book that is OPTIONAL READING, then either dont read it, or dont send your kid to this school.”–MasonH

“If we neglect the parts of the bible that tell us not to eat pork or the parts that tell us to stone disrespectful children, who are we to pick and choose which laws are and aren't important?”–Katherine

“Woah man, isn't Geritol a drug? Too bad, I guess your going to hell.”–Student82

ETC., ETC., ETC. ....

“Keep it up, students! You're polemically beating the ethical and theological crap out of these old, right-wing farts!”–kurtthomas

_______

“Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”–Matthew 10:16

I have not watched this post for several days.
It is glaringly obvious that whatever else this Episcopal school is doing, it is not taking care to preach the Gospel.
The students and parents who have posted here are eloquent. They write in complete sentences. They make arguments which can be followed. A few posts have been brilliant in their lucidity and coherence. Their defense of pluriform faith and of the doctrine of radical inclusion is far better than that of Griswold.
However...
The postings of those who write from SAS do not reflect deep study and meditation on the Scriptures. The postings do not show the reverential awe which is found when one finally meets the living God face to face. I do not hear about the wondrous love which led a perfect and sinless Father to send His only Son to die for us, who did not deserve such a great salvation.
I must admit to a vexing question. We have a high school locally which is termed a school of science and technology. All of their graduates seem quite literate in science and technology. We have a local school which is a school of the arts. All of the graduates have performing arts skills to accompany their academic skills. I could give many other examples.
This SAS school is an Episcopal school. Are its graduates expected to be conversant with Christianity? Are its graduates expected to be conversant with the Anglican Communion? Or is it an expensive prep school which simply masquerades under the ECUSA banner for tax purposes? The views of its students do not seem to materially differ from the private (non-sectarian) prep schools in the DC area where I have taught.
Just asking.

Interesting comments in this forum. I thought I would share the following thoughtful piece written by J. Budziszewski, a tenured professor at UT-Austin, who is a well recognized Christian apologist - I believe that he is a former Episcopalian. This fictional piece relates to a dialogue between a college professor and one of his students. It raises many issues - not the least of which is what does it mean to truly love someone? Budziszewski provides a great definition of what "love" is. Wrestle with this article!
______________________________________________



by J. Budziszewski


"Are you Professor Theophilus?"
I turned. "That's me. Come in."
"My name's Lawrence. I'm gay. I came to complain about your talk about constitutional liberties yesterday. It was bigoted and homophobic. I'm filing a formal protest to the people who run the Student Union speakers series."
At least he’s direct, I thought. I waved him to a seat.
"Help me out, Mr. Lawrence. How could —"
"Just Lawrence."
"Thank you. Now how could my talk have been 'bigoted and homophobic' when it didn't mention homosexuality?"
"I didn't actually hear the talk itself. I came in during Q&A."
"I see. And what did I say during Q&A?"
"You said gays have sex with animals."
I'm used to this sort of thing, so I merely observed, "I'm afraid you weren't listening carefully."
"I remember distinctly," he declared. "A girl asked your opinion of laws against discrimination on on the basis of sexual orientation, and you said gays have sex with animals."
"No, What I said was 'sexual orientation' can mean many things. Some people are 'sexually oriented' toward the opposite sex; others toward the same sex; others toward children; others toward animals; others toward cadavers. I said that I wondered where this trend will end."
"Then you admit that gays don't have sex with animals?"
"You brought that up," I reminded him. "I have no information on the point. I'm only suggesting that not all 'orientations' are morally equivalent."
He said nothing, but showed no inclination to leave. "Do you think all 'orientations' are morally equivalent?" I queried.
"I won't even dignify that question with an answer," he said. "But I know what you think of my orientation. I'm sick of you phony Christians with your filthy hypocrisy about the love of God."
"So you've heard that I'm a Christian."
"Who hasn't? The holy, the sanctimonious, the Most Excellent Professor Theophilus of Post-Everything State University — what else would he be? The whole school reeks of you, of you and the other so-called Christian so-called professors. That's why I walked in on your Q&A. I wanted to see you spit venom."
"My goodness. Have I said anything venomous?"
"It's what you're thinking that's venomous."
"I see," I smiled. "Why don't you stop being bashful, and tell me what's bothering you?"
"You must think you're funny."
"I'm serious. Tell your complaints one by one, and I'll answer them."
"You couldn't answer them. I have too many."
"Try me. I'll give short answers."
He cocked his head and peered at me. "You mean it, don't you?"
"I wouldn't say it if I didn't."
"One at a time?"
"One at a time."
"All right, here's the first. Christians are hypocrites. You're always running down gays, but what about the other things your Bible condemns, like divorce and remarriage? It's other people's sins that bother you, not your own."
I laughed. "If you'd spent any time around me, you'd know that I'm just as hard on the sins of heterosexuals as on those of homosexuals. Easy divorce is a prime example of how one bad thing leads to another — in our case the loss of the ability to make any distinctions about sexual acts at all."
Ignoring the reply, he went on to his next complaint. "You're intolerant. You reject people like me just because we're different than you."
"Me reject you?" I said. "Aren't you the one who rejects what is different than yourself? Don't you reject the challenge of the other sex?"
"I don't need the other sex. I have a committed relationship with my partner."
"Research shows that homosexuals with partners don't stop cruising, they just cruise less. When they don't think straights are listening, gay writers say the same."
"So what if it's true? There's nothing wrong with gay love anyway."
I spoke quietly. "Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease and pain," I suggested. "You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term 'Gay Bowel Syndrome,' or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils."
"You're — how can you even say that?" he demanded. "How dare you tell me who to love?"
"I don't think I am telling you who to love."
"Oh, no? Then what are you telling me?"
"That there is nothing loving about mutual self-destruction."
"You must think my relationship with my partner is just dirt!"
"No, I respect friendship wherever I find it — your friendship with your partner included. It's just that sex doesn't make every kind of friendship better."
"Why not? Are you anti-sex or something?"
"Not at all," I said, "but would you say that sex improves the friendship of a father with his daughter?"
Seeing from his face that he didn't, I continued. "You get my point. Nor does sex improve the friendship of two men."
"That's where you're wrong. Gay sex is just as natural for some people as straight sex is for other people."
"What's 'natural'," I said, "is what unlocks our inbuilt potential instead of thwarting it. One of the purposes of marital sex is to get you outside your Self and its concerns, to achieve intimacy with someone who is Really Other."
Was he listening to any of this? "I'm sorry, Lawrence — I really am — but having sex with another man can't do that. It's too much like loving your reflection. That's what I meant before about refusing the challenge of the other sex."
I was about to go on, but abruptly he changed the subject: "It's attitudes like yours that killed Matthew Shepard."
"Surely you don't imagine that the thugs who killed Matthew Shepard were Christians, do you?" I smiled at the absurdity of the thought, but seeing that he misunderstood my smile I made my face serious and tried again.
"Lawrence, I deplore the violence that killed Matthew Shepard, and I'm glad those men were caught. But shouldn't we also grieve the urge which caused Matthew Shepard to be sexually attracted to violent strangers?"
He said only, "You hate me."
I paused to study him. Did he really believe that, or was it a smokescreen?
"I don't hate you," I said. "I love you." I paused. "I'd like to be with you forever, in heaven."
Lawrence's face displayed shock, as though he had been hit in the stomach. Then he looked confused. The expression of confusion was instantaneously replaced by an expression of anger.
For one split-second, it had looked as if the shutters were open. "God in heaven," I thought, "I need help." How could they be pried back up?
"My love isn't really the issue for you, is it?" I asked.
"What do you mean?"
"It's God's. God's love is the issue for you." For a few seconds there was no reaction.
Then it came. "You're bleeping right God's love is the issue for me," he said. "Your God's love. The lying God who says He loves man, but who hates me for loving men."
"Do you think God hates you?"
"Doesn't He?"
"What makes you say that?"
"Doesn't your Bible say that? It calls people like me an abomination."
"It calls what you do abomination. There's a difference."
"There's no difference. I do what I am."
I considered his point. "Could it be," I said, "that you want God to love you less?"
"Less!" he spat.
"Yes. Don't you know what love is?"
"Acceptance."
"Acceptance of what kills you? Consider another view: Love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person."
"What?"
"I said love is a commitment of the will to the true good of the other person."
"I don't get what you're saying."
"Sure you do. The lover wants what's good for the beloved."
He hesitated. "I suppose."
"Good. Now think. If that's what love is, then a perfect Lover would want the perfect good of the Beloved. Do you see what that means? He would loath and detest whatever destroyed the beloved's good — no matter how much the beloved desired it."
I couldn't read the look on his face, so I plowed on. "That's what sin does — it destroys us. Yours destroys you, mine destroys me. And so the Lover doesn't 'accept' it; He hates it with an inexorable hatred. To cut the cancer out of us, He will do whatever it takes — like a surgeon. No, more than like a surgeon. If you let Him, He will even take the cancer upon Himself and die in your place."
Still inscrutable, he kept his eyes in front of him, just avoiding my own.
I asked "What happens, then, if you refuse to let go of what destroys you? What happens if you say this to the divine and perfect Lover who wants your complete and perfect good — if you say, 'I bind myself to my destruction! Accept me, and my destruction with me! I refuse to enter heaven except in the company of Death!"
Neither of us spoke.
Lawrence rose from his chair and walked out the door.

Wow, pretty charged discussion eh?

I know my own comments appeared flippant and judgmental. There is some reason for that.

Teaching children, or anybody else for that matter. (Remember that both St. Peter and James refer to all Disciples of Christ as "little children". Teachers that say sin is not sin are effectively saying that the gospel has no power to transform.

Christ has done the work.. Christ has to power to deliver anybody from any sinful behavior. And yes over time Jesus can even transform our thought lives and orientations. The term for this ongoing process is sanctification.

My personal harshness toward those who teach that Sin isn't sin comes from my own past experience. I've been one of those new-age relativistic teachers... Thank the Lord that an evangelist one day peeled me like an onion and with the work of the Holy Spirit showed me that there are absolutes.. An absolute Creator who has an absolute plan. After making this discovery (through no merit of my own) I tried to share the truth with those who I had promoted relativism. None believed me, all hated me with a vigor that was astounding. When you lead people astray you may not have the opportunity to make it right with them, to convince them you were wrong and that you’re sorry..... That is a heavy burden....

I'm grateful for the person who God used to bring the Gospel to me.. Harsh criticism of bad teaching is essential to get the attention of the bad teacher.

St. Paul instructs bad teachers who are teaching in the name of the Lord to be silenced... With warm welcome and the joy of the heavenly host when they repent.

The moral of the story is that Jesus can deliver us from our sins and change our sinful nature little by little as we grow in wisdom and stature. However, if we are taught that destructive sinful behavior is acceptable or Godly than we will not cry out to God to deliver us and the sin eventually will do what sin always does.. Lead us to death. Christ defeated death and sin........ Christ alone can deliver us from sin.

For the student who implied that science and religion don't mix, here's a great quote from Einstein:

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Great food for thought -

What God has Made Clean: If we can eat prawns, why is gay sex wrong? by John Richardson is an Anglican minister in rural Essex.


The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics by Dr. Robert Gagnon

The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom


The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality by CDC




humbly, gregory

updated links 1/31/09

"A few posts have been brilliant in their lucidity and coherence."

____

Mathman, though I nearly always agree with you, I beg to differ. Without going into my own parochial and public educational history and professional background, I found the SAS posts here "C" work at best. I do not find any which I would call "brilliant" or "lucid." I did not find any which were "searching" to understand. Instead, I found ones which reflected not only already formed (and partisan) opinions, but erroneous ones to boot. These posts are, in my opinion, inconstent with what one would expect at this age. Furthermore, not only is their unfamiliarity with orthodox Christianity appalling in the context of an Episcopal school, their lack of respect, their confidence and certainty, are contradicted by their moral ambivalence. Furthermore, the tones of the posts are stereotypical. We have certain stereotypes lamenting "hatred" and others that trash-talk. We have one making a point to note that her father's on the board. Others speak lovingly of their school and seek sympathy for themselves and their cause by arguing that the orthodox among us are assailing a fine, Christian institution when this debate is about their curriculum. We are to feel ashamed?

In short, they simply do not "ring true" to me, and that they are all "of the same mind" and make essentially the same arguments, with no disagreements among themselves (as there among the orthodox here) indicates that a certain manipulation is occurring.

I fear, ladies and gentleman, that some of you do not perceive the profundity of the evil that you are battling. It goes well beyond sodomy. It is very deep-seated and will stop at nothing to advance its objectives.

"I fear, ladies and gentleman, that some of you do not perceive the profundity of the evil that you are battling. It goes well beyond sodomy. It is very deep-seated and will stop at nothing to advance its objectives."

---

Yes, stoneridge, you are right on the mark. (pun!)

The evil of which you speak promotes the idea that there are no deep truths with regard to why we were created, what we're here for, and what we're meant to become. If such is true, then we are only the sum of our desires (like animals), and that those desires make the fulfilling of them 'good' (for there is nothing else).

It is an evil that dehumanizes, and seeks that we become the least of what we can be (like the Brave New World).

It is very successful in schools such as these - and sadly, in much of society today.

It is also, of course, the exact opposite of what God seeks to teach us - and of what He wants from us and for us.

With much Christian love,

Essodalori