Teacher Fighting for Job After Refusing District’s Demands to Call Students by ‘Transgender’ Names

INDIANAPOLIS (USA Today) A teacher is fighting for his job after he says the district forced him to resign over its so-called transgender student policy.

John Kluge, the former orchestra teacher at Brownsburg High School in Indiana, said the school district’s requirement that teachers call transgender students by their preferred names, rather than those given at birth, goes against his religious beliefs. The requirement, Kluge said, violates his First Amendment rights.

“I’m being compelled to encourage students in what I believe is something that’s a dangerous lifestyle,” he said. “I’m fine to teach students with other beliefs, but the fact that teachers are being compelled to speak a certain way is the scary thing.”

Continue Reading This Story >>


Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Samwise

    Teachers should call everyone by their preferred name. It is simple courtesy.

    • Agnes

      I absolutely agree. Why would anyone think they know another person better than that person knows themself anyhow? It has nothing to do with religious beliefs… there is no religion which forbids people to address others as the name they go by.

    • cadcoke5

      Let me draw a comparable situation. Suppose a girl, who is grossly underweight because she feels she is overweight, an so is always on a diet. She announces she has successfully lost another 5 pounds. Should a teacher be compelled to affirm her for her attention to her health, and weight loss?

      Calling the girl in the article by her preferred boy name is the same thing. It is designed to compel him to affirm her preferred gender. He even sought to avoid the issue by using last names. But, the school was not satisfied. They want unreserved compliance to the school’s beliefs, even if they go smack into the face of God’s word.

      • HarmNoOne

        your name is what you want to be called….if it’s the name you answer to why should anyone refuse to call you that? this teacher was out of line

        • cadcoke5

          Let me draw again upon my example of the girl with Anorexia. Suppose she now wanted to be called “Fattie”, since she felt that would encourage her to loose more weight. Is it appropriate for the school to require that everyone call her “Fattie”.

          This girl’s chosen name (though it does not say this is her legal name) carries the same sort of message. It says “I feel I am a boy, therefore you must use the name I chose to affirm that delusion”.

          Again, note that the teacher started using everyone’s last name, to avoid talking against this girl’s delusion. But, that was not enough for the school. They (and apparently you) demand absolute compliance to the idea that gender is something chosen by the individual, and they must affirm this verbally. Any teacher who feels otherwise must be removed.

          • HarmNoOne

            your example makes no sense because nobody would give themself a nickname like that. you cant compare it to this situation where it’s a simple name and identity.

          • cadcoke5

            People can do some weird stuff. I recall reading about a girl who cut “worthless” onto her forehead. They can even do something totally ridiculous, such as wanting to change genders.

            I will add that anorexia is often a life-long struggle. “Conversion” efforts are often not totally effective. Why not just consider it a different philosophy about health and eating? Anyone who opposes it should be called a hater. Correct?

          • HarmNoOne

            if they want to change genders it is because they are transgender people. it is real and they aren’t just doing it for attention. there are transgenders worldwide. someone cutting a word into her head needs help. anorexia is life threatening and is both a mental and physical disorder and can’t be compared

          • cadcoke5

            So, the transgender person wants to abuse hormones, and have healthy organs removed. And then, there is the death rate fro suicide… even in countries that have long accepted the idea that someone can change their gender.

            It sounds like a close equivalent to anorexia. Though there is one important difference.

            I will mention two differences between the two. One is that the transgender person is often demanding that others submit to their delusion, even in places like locker rooms. The other is that God’s word is quite explicit about the sinfulness of transgenderism. The individual is spitting in the face of the one who invented gender.

          • HarmNoOne

            God doesnt mention transgenderism.

          • cadcoke5

            Throughout the bible, OT and NT, it prescribes some differing responsibilities assigned to men and women. It prohibits, cross dressing, and homosexuality. It clearly labels these things as sin.

            And, of course, God’s invention of gender is plainly in front of us. Male and female have different bodies that are clearly designed to physically fit together for mutual pleasure.

            The concept of gender is very well defined throughout history. Some now want to re-define the words gender, male, & female, to exclude physical gender. But that does not change the definition of the words used in God’s word.

    • Amos Moses – He>i

      hi teacher …. you are Mr Brown … how nice ….. i will call you that ….. and BTW ….. i like to be called by my first name …..

      my first name is “SIR” ………….

  • Stinger

    Why don’t all the kids just “identify” as straight A students? If “identifying” is all that matters, let the kids identify as 18-year-olds who already have their diplomas.

    I mean, we want to be FAIR, don’t we?

    • HarmNoOne

      because straight a student isn’t their name or what they want to be called. I know lots of people with stupid names but it’s not up to me to call them something else

      • Stinger

        If a male pretends to be female, that is his business. If he forces others to play along with him, that is wrong. No one should force another person to participate in a delusion. Those of us who prefer reality to delusion should not be persecuted. Aiding and abetting mental illness is wrong.

        • HarmNoOne

          a transgender isnt a male pretending to be a female.

          • It is a demonic induced mental illness and only Christ Jesus is the cure.

          • HarmNoOne

            ha I think every doctor on earth would disagree with you

          • Not the Christian ones.

          • HarmNoOne

            yeah even the christian ones.

          • Nope and that is Christian not christian.

          • HarmNoOne

            well I know many Christians who don’t have a problem with people being gay, the world isn’t narrow minded like that anymore, we have made many advances

          • You have the right to choose God or choose Satan and the world.

            Just remember that choices have consequences. Living your life rejecting God and the consequence of that choice is eternal separation from Him in the lake of fire.

          • HarmNoOne

            I prefer the company of Christians who do not discriminate against people for things they have no control over. I believe Jesus would as well.

          • What does that have to do with what I just said?

          • HarmNoOne

            I don’t believe what you said. not beating up on gay people doesnt mean choosing satan. it’s just doing the right thing.

          • I am not beating up on you.

          • HarmNoOne

            i’m not gay.

          • I thought you said you were.

          • HarmNoOne

            no i never said that.

          • My bad…..I apologize.

          • No one is born gay. Just as with all sin it is a choice and as with all sin only Christ Jesus is the answer and the cure.

          • HarmNoOne

            we have known for years that is not true.

          • That has never been proven and according to God it is a sin and all sin is a choice.

          • HarmNoOne

            yeah it’s been proven and i will go with the science on this.

          • Do you believe in the God of the Bible?

  • Scott Davenport

    Look….places like this school are Dens of Satan now and they push his evil desires, they’re never going to change, so the big question is, WHY would you still associate with these fools????

    God said not to waste your time on fools with hardened hearts, which is why I just don’t associate with them….they’re sick as hell in the head for choosing to promote Sin and receiving an eternity in Hell for it, but we’re sure as heck never going to get thru to the perverts, so I gave up….unless I see them encouraging others to be like them, then it’s time for the ol’ foot up ass to rear itself…God didn’t say we had to put up with that…. 😉

    • HarmNoOne

      if this guy feels the way you say then he shouldnt be a teacher

  • LynnRH

    I am totally against the gay and transgender movement that is sooooo out of hand in our ridiculously crazy society these days! But I don’t know why calling a person by their preferred name would be a problem. That really wouldn’t be any different than a straight/normal person who just doesn’t like their name and prefers to be called another name. I think most of us would accommodate them with that.

    • Spencer Tracy

      The important thing is why they want to be called that name. If it is to deny reality and in so doing screw up their lives the teacher is doing them a favour by refusing to use the preferred name.

      • Samwise

        No. The important thing is figuring out the difference between “my business” and “not my business.”

        Let’s say Bob really objects to purity culture. Bob sincerely thinks it is misogynistic and hypocritical and harmful to young girls. If Bob is a teacher, and a student says “Call me Purity,” Bob should call her Purity.

        Every person deserves the dignity of being called by their preferred name. If you think them stupid or deluded ot deceived, mind your own business and use the preferred name.

        It isn’t hard. All it takes is humility to realize it’s not about you and kindness to treat people as they want to be treated.

        • Amos Moses – He>i

          the child in the teachers class ……… IS his business ………..

          “All it takes is humility to realize it’s not about you and kindness to treat people as they want to be treated.”

          my child wants to be treated as if they are the parent and i am the child ….. so i guess i should be “humble” and submit …… i think that takes the cake for the most stupid thing i have read all week ….. the child is in charge …….

          WOW ……….. seem as if your idea of who is in authority is bassackwards and upside-down ……….

        • peanut butter

          But what if all the girls want to be called ‘Purity’. That would cause a problem… just as much as a room full of boys wanting to be called Florence.
          My thought process has been raised on reality. Most people were raised the same way. I have a cousin who wants to be called ‘Dawn’. When I go in, I say just what I always said before he got this notion rammed in his head at school, I call him by his given name. He says Hi back. If a kid is not courageous enough to demand it, people shouldn’t back them up in it. It’s a phase that might be dropped if everybody else doesn’t go along with it. Standing up WITH a child in a delusion only gives them confidence in what they are doing. And trying to make the whole world change their salutation to one person is nothing but bullying. We all have our desires, and my desire is NOT to encourage anything that is fake. My desire not to be fake is just as important as their desire is to BE fake. And more so, since I am an adult, and adults are supposed to teach children how to act, not how to act up.

  • Garden of Love

    Poor man, steamrolled in the name of “social justice.”

  • Lydia Church

    Sin is their agenda.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    IT SPREADS: LIBRARIES PUSH CROSS-DRESSING ON YOUNG KIDS
    ‘Allows us to broadcast and share who we are with the world’

    the pedophiles just have to have the children ………..

    • Charles des Barres

      1) This story isn’t about pedophilia
      2) Cross-dressing is not pedophilia
      3) No source for your story

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        it is all about pedophilia ….. they are not reading stories to grandma and grandpa ……..

        • Charles des Barres

          And they are not having sex with children, which is what pedophilia is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            they ARE GROOMING ……. and that is PEDOPHILIA ………….

          • Charles des Barres

            They are not grooming, how ridiculous. How does one groom a child for sexual abuse?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            one way is by parading a sexual pervert in front of them as if that is “normal” …….

          • Charles des Barres

            I can understand not wanting a young child to be exposed to a drag queen, especially a young child who has not had such things explained to them at home. But that is HARDLY “grooming” them for future sexual abuse. Drag queens don’t even engage in sex themselves, at least not in public – they just put on a show.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yes it is GROOMING …….. and it always has been ………

          • Charles des Barres

            I care very much about children. I care about them so much in fact that when they reach an age where they can understand such things, I will teach them not to judge and hate people based on their appearance, skin color or gender attraction no matter what they hear from radical fundamentalists.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” I will teach them not to judge and hate people based on their appearance, skin color or gender attraction no matter what they hear from radical fundamentalists.”

            right ……… so …. YOU …… will groom them to be victims ……. because that is how it is done ………… and the sad fact is you SAY it is not grooming …….. and this is how you show you “care for children” …… WOW …. just ….. WOW …………..

          • Charles des Barres

            I didn’t say I would groom them to be victims, just the opposite. I won’t allow them to be victims of sexual predators OR listen to the crazy ravings of people who tell them that they have to be afraid of innocent people who have no interest in harming them, such as homosexuals and transgenders. You, on the other hand, will teach them to fear people for no reason, people who wouldn’t even think of touching them. Wow. Just wow.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I didn’t say I would groom them to be victims,”

            RIGHT …. you did not say it …… BUT YOUR ACTIONS that you said YOU would follow ….. is GROOMING THEM ………..

          • Charles des Barres

            There is no such thing as grooming children for sexual abuse. When a child is sexually abused, it happens suddenly with no warning and no preparation. No transgender person, or homosexual, or drag queen wants to see any children hurt. You’re wrong about that. 100% wrong.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “There is no such thing as grooming children for sexual abuse.”

            WOW ….. and you think your opinion should be observed in this matter ……. when you do not know what you are talking about ……..

          • Charles des Barres

            What my statement means, and you know it, is there is no such thing as grooming children for sexual abuse THE WAY YOU PRESENTED IT, in other words with a cross dresser speaking to a group of children. Or with a TV show.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            by teaching them “not to judge” ….. you are preparing them for abuse …… so when uncle charly lays a hand or whatever to your child …… you are going to REINFORCE that teaching …. RIGHT …. and say to them “how can you be such a childish bigot, i did not raise you that way, who are you to judge what uncle charly did” ………….. good job of grooming ……

            answer a fool according to their folly ……..

          • Charles des Barres

            You shouldn’t judge people for their orientation. It’s good and right and proper to teach that to children, it isn’t “grooming”. When Uncle Charly lays a hand on the child, we deal with Uncle Charly so it never happens again. Grooming is just another in the long list of words which you don’t understand.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “You shouldn’t judge people for their orientation.”

            based on what exactly ……… your opinion ……… REALLY …. based on WHAT ….. PRECISELY ……

          • Charles des Barres

            Based on the fact that you have no reason to assume a homosexual or transgender is going to harm a child. They wouldn’t, any more than a heterosexual would.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. that does not answer the question ….. you are making a MORAL judgement about behavior and saying “You shouldn’t judge people” …. SO ….. based on what …. in a precise fashion ….. are you making such a claim ……

          • Charles des Barres

            You have no good, logical reason to state why you think a homosexual use would endanger a child. They allow homosexuals to adopt children, so that sends your entire premise spinning down the toilet. You are basing everything on opinions.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have made certain MORAL judgements …… on what basis do you think you are entitled to do so ………..

          • Charles des Barres

            The law makes the same ones and everyone lives by them just fine.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the law is not based on MORALS or moraity ….. YOU are making MORAL JUDGEMENTS about what is right and what is wrong ….. and i am asking you ….. WHERE is your AUTHORITY to claim what you are claiming ……..

            FYI ….. the “law” once said it was okay to massacre Jews in camps …… and you want to base your morality on the law …… FAIL ……….

          • Charles des Barres

            The law isn’t always right. On this subject however, it is.

            The golden rule works pretty well for most people. Treat people the way you would want to be treated. Don’t abuse innocent children. Don’t beat up homosexuals.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so YOU are making an appeal to scripture and to God and His standard ……. is this correct ……..

          • Charles des Barres

            Incorrect. I said “The golden rule”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            right …. SCRIPTURE ….. the golden rule COMES FROM GOD …….. not you ……..

          • Charles des Barres

            The golden rule predates the Bible by an enormously long space of time.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            ” When Uncle Charly lays a hand on the child, we deal with Uncle Charly so it never happens again.”

            BIGOT ….. hey ….. “love is love” …… and WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE HIS LOVE ……… and WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE HIS ORIENTATION ………

          • Charles des Barres

            Love is love and abuse is abuse. It’s a shame you still don’t know what informed consenting adults means. We don’t let children be sexually abused by adults. Ever.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “love is love” ….. BASED ON WHAT ….. “abuse is abuse” ….. BASED ON WHAT …… you are still using SEMANTICALLY NULL statements and they make no sense in ENGLISH which you appear to be trying to use …… “It’s a shame you still don’t know what informed consenting adults means.” …. has NOTHING to do with your statements ……….. so also NULL ……..

          • Charles des Barres

            Love is love based on the fact two consenting adults say they are in love, the same as anyone else. “Informed consent” is why children are out of the equation even though you try at every opportunity to squeeze them back in.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE … you are not being asked to define love ….. as you STILL have failed to do so ……… you are being asked ON WHAT BASIS are you making a MORAL APPEAL …………

          • Charles des Barres

            What is this moral quagmire you are stuck in? If it’s consenting adults then beyond that I don’t care. Look up the word CONSENT. It appears to be giving you trouble.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i am asking YOU for your basis of MORALITY …… i do not think you have an answer …. as you KEEP AVOIDING the question ……. CONSENT is not at issue ………. and it is not an answer ….. SO …. WHERE IS YOUR AUTHORITY to make moral judgments as you are making MORAL JUDGMENTS …………

          • Charles des Barres

            Where is yours?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            as has been discussed again and again ………. this is a CHRISTIAN FORUM …… so what would be your guess ……….

          • Charles des Barres

            So you’re telling me the only valid morality to have is what you get from your religion?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have yet to provide ANY OTHER …… except YOUR OPINION …… and what you have given is STOLEN from the God of scripture ………… so why do you not BE A MAN ….. and just declare what YOUR beliefs in God are …. or not ….. and quit your pussifooting around …….

            although it is apparent what it is …… if you were at all honest you would just state it outright ……….

            let me make it easy for you ….. does OBJECTIVE MORALITY exist or not …………

          • Charles des Barres

            This discussion has nothing to do with God and everything to do with you having your own made up definitions for things. My morality isn’t dictated to me by anyone, I learned it from my parents who raised me. I know many, many Christians, all of them good people, and none of them have the fear and distrust of homosexuals that you have, and not a single one of them would equate homosexuality with pedophilia the way you are. That’s got nothing to do with God or the Bible and everything to do with you giving in to your own fear.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “There is no such thing as grooming children for sexual abuse.”

            child grooming
            The constellation of psychological manipulations and actions taken by a predatory adult, meant to reduce a child’s fears and inhibitions, as a prelude to sexual abuse or exploitation by the predator or his/her associates.
            Segen’s Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc.

          • Charles des Barres

            Which has what to do with homosexuals or transgenders? Or cross dressers?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it is STILL GROOMING despite their supposed “orientation” ……….

          • Charles des Barres

            No it isn’t. Grooming is a very precise set of practices, and being homosexual isn’t among them.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … sorry … it is not very “precise” …….. and homosexuals are not immune from pedophilia and pederasty …… and most will admit that at times in their lives they were victims …… and have made victims ………. so your trying to hold them up as some paragon of virtue is wasted ……… and a LIE ……….

          • Charles des Barres

            So you didn’t actually take the time to learn what “grooming” was, you just applied the word to your worst nightmares.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so just your uninformed opinion …….

          • Charles des Barres

            Clearly not, if you think grooming means letting your child watch a tv show. That isn’t what it means.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you have not told us what it is …… so i doubt you can tell anyone what it is not …… YOU have no authority ……. just your opinion …….

          • Charles des Barres

            Why can’t you simply Google “grooming children for sexual abuse”? Are you afraid you’ll find out you’re wrong?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i have …. i have posted it …. YOU …. have not ….. you have posted your own uninformed opinion …….

            Online paedophiles can groom a child in less than 20 minutes, study finds

          • Charles des Barres

            I have no doubt that a pedophile can find a child quickly. But you have changed the subject again. Grooming, if you followed the Google links, is a very specific process of targeting a child, befriending them, gaining their trust, and then luring them to be abused.

            What grooming ISN’T: teaching kids about homosexuals, teaching them what a transgender is, watching a TV show which explains what a homosexual is, and letting a cross dresser read a story to your child (although I have issues with this last one, it’s still not grooming).

            So there you go. Now you know what grooming is, and what it’s not.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            see ….. here is the problem YOU have ….. GOOGLE ….. well how can i put this …… IS NOT THE AUTHORITY HERE …….. and consequently ….. NEITHER ARE YOU ………. and if you do not like that ….. TOUGH ….. again …. this is a CHRISTIAN FORUM ….. and the AUTHORITY HERE ……. is scripture and God …… and YOU are the one who CAME HERE ….. WE did not go looking for you …….. you just showed up and expect will will follow YOUR NONSENSE …..

            sorry ………………………………………. nope …………………..

          • Charles des Barres

            Bull cookies. You don’t get a free pass by appealing to God. Anybody can do that. And there is nothing in the Bible that supports all the things you’ve been saying about pedophilia and homosexuals having the inability to be faithful, that’s just plain bigotry.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “You don’t get a free pass by appealing to God.”

            again …. THIS IS A CHRISTIAN FORUM ……. if you do not like the standard here ….. TAKE A HIKE MIKE …… because we do not care and will not accept YOUR phoney authority …….

          • Charles des Barres

            You’re not speaking like a Christian, though. I’ve told you that many times. Christians are supposed to love, not hate. It’s pretty sad to me that you have to be corrected on your Christian morality by someone outside of your faith.

          • Joseph Godleski

            Charles what amos is saying if a child sees a person in drag or a transgender or homosexual get up in front of a group of young impressionable kids they will think that lifestyle is normal and think it is okay to express oneself in that manner what they are grooming is to make kids question their sexuality and then when they get older experiment with other sexual orientations and lifestyle if they can get a generation to accept the lgbt culture when us who oppose it die off they will have no opposition to it and then they can pass. Their agenda and have a world of people open and accepting to the gay lesbian transgender lifestyle

          • Charles des Barres

            Respectfully, no, what Amos was saying and IS saying is that drag queens reading stories to children is grooming them for pedophilia. Which is ridiculous, because the worst thing that is going to happen in a situation like that is that the child is going to grow up learning that not everyone is straight, which happens to be true. But it’s not going to cause kids to question their sexuality because you cannot “turn” someone gay or straight, or convince them to be, or recruit them. That doesn’t happen, and it doesn’t work that way. LGBT culture is already accepted, and that’s happened because of advances in understanding thanks to science and medicine. If people wish to oppose it for religions reasons they have a right to do that. But a drag queen reading a story book to children (which I disapprove of, by the way) isn’t grooming them in any way.

          • Henry J. Richards

            People do not “groom” children for sexual abuse. In most of the cases where a child is abused it is by a person in a trusted position or a family member.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Yes They Do …….. otherwise you would not get them to cooperate ….. “In most of the cases where a child is abused ” …… THEY HAVE BEEN GROOMED ……….

          • Henry J. Richards

            That’s just stupid. They DON’T cooperate. Can you find me any news items where a child was actively prepared for an act of abuse? I’ll bet you can’t.

            I live in the real world. Where do you live?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            apparently you live in a world DEVOID of the reality that all abuse is a matter of grooming ……. and you do not know what you are talking about ……… just because you FAIL to recognize it occurs does not mean it does not occur ……..

          • Henry J. Richards

            Here you go:

            Google “child sexual abuse what is grooming”, the site you want is SSAIC.

            Now you can read all about how grooming happens, and how it’s got nothing to do with the programming on a TV channel that offends your fundie sensibilities, and even less to do with cross dressers, transgenders, transvestites or homosexuals. All the people you’re trying to crap on in other words.

            But at least once you read this article, you will have no further excuse for being a bigot.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            this is not on TV ….. it is IN A LIBRARY ….. in front of CHILDREN ….. and the GOVERNMENT who controls the libraries ….. are participants ……… and it is GROOMING ……. and you want children to be abused by this ……. and that makes you a bigot ……… and a molester ENABLER ……….

          • Henry J. Richards

            Yeah, in a library, but WHAT is taking place in a library that has you so worked up? A cross dresser reading a bunch of kids a CHILDREN’S BOOK?

            HOW IS THAT GROOMING, YOU IGNORANT FATHEAD?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            a sexual pervert in front of children GROOMING them to accept such PERVERSION …… or are you unable to follow a conversation …..

          • Henry J. Richards

            So it isn’t what’s being said that bothers you at all, but the person who’s saying it. That explains a lot about you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “A homosexual or transgender or transvestite could be simply saying “hi kids” and to you that is grooming.”

            that is not what is happening …… and parading a pervert in their “costume” of perversion IS …… oh …. and …….. TOS VIOLATION ……….

          • Henry J. Richards

            You are taking the very real practice of grooming and giving it your own definition, which includes a bunch of innocent people you happen not to like. THAT is what’s going on here.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. i am taking the very real practice of GROOMING …… and POINTING out what YOU have decided to IGNORE ……………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            TOS VIOLATION …….

          • Henry J. Richards

            I DON’T CARE…YOU ARE A VIOLATION OF A DECENT HUMAN BEING WITH YOUR HATE!

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            so you have no REAL argument ….. and you devolve to name calling …. and if you did not care then leave ……. but your statement that you do not only points out that you do …..

            TRUTH is hard to respond to ….. and you are frustrated by your own ignorance ……….

          • Henry J. Richards

            The desire to empty a trash bucket of obscenities in your direction is absolutely overwhelming sometimes when you are such a complete buffoon, a science-hating, truth-hating, homophobic bigot who is always right and never wrong and refuses to believe even the dictionary when you’re confronted with it. You bend the Bible to your hateful ways, not the other way around. You’re a pus-filled boil on the bottom of humanity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            TOS VIOLATION ….. AGAIN ……… no intellectual argument ….. you cannot refute the truth ….. you are frustrated that the TRUTH is being told to you …… and all you have is AD HOMINEM …

          • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

            May God rebuke you and your hate.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    LGBTETC Mob Takes Down Christian CrossFit Executive

    Fired for Saying He ‘Personally Believes’ Celebrating Homosexuality Is a Sin

    CrossFit CEO Tells Him ‘Shut the —- Up,’ Affiliate Owner Calls Him ‘Disgusting Piece of Trash’

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    i think the mentally ill are getting worse ……..

    Then we see another Twitter user, getting triggered by a McDonald’s worker who had the audacity to ask her if the Happy Meal she was buying was for a boy or a girl, which led her to berate the poor worker for 45 minutes about “how damaging it is to enforce the gender binary.”

    /SMH ………..

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Two Trans Boys Compete in Girl’s State Track Meet, Crush Everyone, Break Records

    IA judge rules ‘sex-change’ surgeries must be paid for by Medicaid tax dollars

    YUP …… just keeps getting worse ………….

  • This is a good call. A agent of the state has no right to deny students their right to be called by a preferred name because of his religious beliefs. He COULD possibly have a case for denying their preferred names if and only if it presented a legal issue in his favor and had nothing to do with religious beliefs.

    • cadcoke5

      Why does a religious belief loose out over a non-religious belief? Is atheism or at least deism the official religion of the school/government?

      • It’s a good question. I think, however, you do not mean “religion,” but “Christianity.” In our multicultural/multi-theistic society, to bend to everyone’s religious beliefs would constitute chaos and confusion.

        As I’m sure that you know, atheism and humanism are not religions. These philosophies basically say that everyone has a right to their own beliefs and actions so long as they do not bring harm to others. Therefore, no one’s religious beliefs may prevail in schools or any government organization, constitutionally. That should be obvious.

        But religion in government institutions is a legal issue where a school district’s rules are not, but they are rules. Teachers are not supposed to be disrespectful to their students. That is, or should be, the policy of all school districts. If a teacher refuses to be respectful to any student, they he should pack up and apply at a Christian school where equality and respect may not necessarily held to a high standard.

        • cadcoke5

          Even if Atheism and humanism don’t fit the normal historical use of the word religion, they are recognized and treated as a religion by the U.S. courts. That is why they get to enjoy the same privileges/tax deductions/etc. as other faiths.

          Though, those non-religious faiths seem to get a free pass when it comes to the school system. I.e. their creation stories are permitted, but the Biblical one is not. All morality in the schools must be faithful to adhere to doctrines that are consistent with Atheism. That is why the school, in this example is demanding that this teacher affirm the gender choice of this girl.

          The teacher in this story was not trying to be disrespectful. I think he did everything that was possible to avoid that. Everyone in the class was being addressed by their last name, to avoid it. The only thing missing was that he would not affirm the girl’s desire to be a boy, by using the new first name she wants to have. The school, in this case, is demanding affirmation of the idea of transgenderism.

          • Even if Atheism and humanism don’t fit the normal historical use of the word religion, they are recognized and treated as a religion by the U.S. courts.

            You are correct that atheist ORGANIZATIONS are sometimes placed on the same legal level as religions, they have not been declared to be a religion. In other words, a teacher cannot tell his students that there is no god anymore than he can claim there is one or more.

            And, certainly, you cannot claim that no mention of religion at all in classes or the denial of constitutes the proselytization of atheism or that a school boards policies are atheistic. They are secular.

            I’m sure you’ve heard of the Lemon Test? The SCOTUS, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, ruled three requirements for government concerning religion, they are :

            1.The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;

            2.The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and

            3.The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

            But to the case at hand, I disagree that refusing to respect a students desire to be addressed by a different first name is not disrespectful. A teacher should respect his students and the school board demands no less, especially in the case of a transgender student. The pressure the Christian community puts people who identify as something other than what they insist people should be has driven many young people to suicide.

            So, for goodness sake, just respect them. It hurts no one.

          • cadcoke5

            I am perhaps not as familiar as you with the details of how atheism is treated in regards to the “establishment clause”. So, I am curious on how it is not treated the same as God oriented faiths. I will also comment that the word “secular” is properly used to describe the work of para-church organizations. So, it is possible to preach a secular sermon and have an alter call, if it is done outside of a church. At least, this is what the word used to mean. We seem to live in an age where words are sometimes redefined to mean the opposite of what they used to.

            However, even if the government is prohibited from saying “there is no God”, it tends to act in the world of education, as though it were being faithful to an atheistic world view. It is the same as when the “design movement” is denied any presence in the science department, because it is perceived as furthering religion, even if there is no mention of God or any particular faith. It seems that the science department, (at least in Pennsylvania) must be dogmatically faithful to exclude anything that could imply the possibility of a creator for our world. This is not at all neutral, and certainly flies in the face of what the signers of the Constitution thought the establishment clause meant when they signed.

            I think the above is pertinent to the discussion, because it means that if you want to define the establishment clause the way it is used now, you should not be favoring world views that align with a theistic faith, vs. one that is non-theistic.

            Your definition of respect, as it applies to transgenderism, requires everyone to say words to affirm the transgender persons faith. Avoiding the issue is not even enough. It effectively requires anyone, who holds to the Bible as being God’s word, to deny their own beliefs, and say things for the purpose of going along with someone else’s belief.

            You say that requiring everyone to use words that go along with another person’s beliefs about themselves will hurt no one. It both tramples the speaker’s right to have a different view, and if I am correct in my view that transgenderism is wrong, then I am hurting the transgender person by affirming their delusion. That is why I gave the example of anorexia feeling they are a “Fattie” in another sub-thread.

            I’ve also spoken with folks that have schizophrenia. Generally, when they say stuff that I think is delusional, I normally try to avoid denying it, unless it is important and try to focus on other things. I certainly don’t affirm their delusion. There are even some who sometimes believe they are the Lord God. But, to address them as the, “Lord God” would neither help the person, and would require me to deny God himself. That is what you are saying I must do to “respect” the person who is delusional about their gender.

            God is the inventor of gender, and has some clearly spelled out guidance about gender. The individual has the right to spit in the face of their creator, by declaring themselves to be the opposite gender (though it may not go so well at the final judgment). But, they do not have the right to require me to do so.

          • cadcoke5, did you delete your last response to me? I have it in my email, but can’t find it here.

            However, in scanning it, I came across what is perhaps our major disagreement–our core difference:

            Your definition of respect, as it applies to transgenderism, requires everyone to say words to affirm the transgender persons faith.

            There it is–you, as do most (all?) evangelicals, reject science wherever it steps on your theological toes (e.g., evolution, plate tectonics, and genetics). I do not.

            I accept the science mainly because of the Scientific Method. You might want to google it or I can provide you with it (It’s quite short, but very understandable and logical).

            So to your belief that “transgenderism” is a “faith,” it is not. It is a matter of genetics. Many (most?) evangelicals believe that all LGBTs choose that lifestyle. But since so many “main-stream” people have been nurtured by religion to believe they are “deviants, sinners, mentally unstable,” they take some dark pride in harassing, attacking (sometimes physically), and generally label them with slur words. They are feared and hated because they are not, according to the mainstream people as not “normal.” So, why on Earth would anyone choose to run that gauntlet?

            But again, this is why I keep asking Christians who spread mantras such as “it’s a choice,” and “God made Adam and Eve, not
            Adam and Steve”; If every baby is born distinctly either male or female, how is it that Intersexuals are born (both male and female sex organs), and exactly how should Christians go about managing their love life? Which gender would you forbid them from loving and marrying, both?

            The intersexual condition goes to the very heart of the genetics factor. It is proof, in my estimation, that what one appears to be physically is no guarantee that his genetic disposition agrees. He was born that way. Too, this fact answers the question; Why do some young people commit suicide after undergoing religious conversion therapy? Because it is psychologically damaging. Well meaning but science-challenged people are pushing, via threat of eternal Hell fire, to reject precisely what his genetic disposition says he truly is.

            We seem to live in an age where words are sometimes redefined to mean the opposite of what they used to.

            Yes. I agree. I was outraged when Cheney/Bush changed the word “torture,” which is an international crime against humanity, to “enhanced interrogation.” It was, of course, torture to which many innocent people were subjected.

            However, torture has nothing to do with genetics. It is a learned, behavioral disposition and definitely evil and egregious. Trump has said that we should be killing the families of suspected terrorists.

            You say that requiring everyone to use words that go along with another person’s beliefs about themselves will hurt no one.

            Again, “Transgenderism” (for want of a better word) is not a belief. It is genetic. Human sexuality spans a full spectrum much the same as skin shades and colors. Every person’s genetic structure is a variation of his parents and that includes, from time to time, a shift to an LGBT disposition and intersexuality.

    • cadcoke5

      You replied to one of my messages on Jun13, asking if I had deleted my posting. I did not, and your own reply has not appeared, so I cannot reply to it. In the past, I have seen that Discus will send out the e-mail of the reply, but then hold the comment for moderation. I have found Discus to be unreliable in other ways as well. I will contact the owners of this web page, and suggest they find some other service than Discus.

      Regarding the idea of a genetic basis for transgenderism. I have done a little research, and know of no study saying that transgenderism is genetic. I imagine that is why there is no genetic test to diagnose it.

      I am aware that there are some individuals (extraordinarily rare) that have both male and female organs. I speculated that such individuals may be chimera. I.e. the bodies of two fraternal twins that joined soon after conception. So they are not actually hermaphrodite, but two genetically distinct individuals with merged bodies.

      But, for this discussion, I will comment that all the conservative and Christian commentary regarding transgenderism seems to be about fully complete male or female individuals, for whom the only evidence of their being trapped in the wrong body, is what they say to the psychologist. So, that seems to be the overwhelming focus of the discussion.

      As a parallel situation, there other “I’m in the wrong body” types of claims that the psychologist might see. I corresponded briefly with one, who felt he was really a wolf in a human body. If he requires that his employer permit him to wear his wolf costume at work, it is OK to fire him. And even if wolves don’t wear clothes, it is appropriate to call the police when he goes to town nude. Nor is it in any way disrespectful to address him by his human name, instead of the wolf howl he may prefer. Would you agree in this example?

      You post (that has not appeared yet on this thread) referred to the scientific method. You also refer to the immoral acts by Pres. Bush, that permitted torture (and other immoral sexual acts that I think should have be prosecuted as crimes) But what were the steps of the scientific method, that you used to determine they were immoral?

      • You replied to one of my messages on Jun13, asking if I had deleted my posting. I did not, and your own reply has not appeared, so I cannot reply to it.

        Interesting. I went back to my email notice of that posting and clicked on the time and date. Your message did not appear. Since I don’t save my own replies, it was gone too and I can’t recover it.

        If you still see your 6:22 p.m., Tuesday June 12 posting, I cannot. That is a shame because you and I are both being civil. Some moderator apparently is not a fan of free speech.

        I am aware that there are some individuals (extraordinarily rare) that have both male and female organs.

        Less rare than you think.

        According to Intersex Society of North America:

        Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

        The article can be found by googling “Intersex Society of North America” and “How common is intersex.” It is a good, well researched site and explains much more.

        I have done a little research, and know of no study saying that transgenderism is genetic.

        According to the publication, “Psychology Today”:

        The term transgender refers to people whose sense of their own gender differs from what would be expected based on the sex characteristics with which they are born. A transgender person may identify as a woman despite having been born with male genitalia, for example, and some transgender people do not specifically identify as men or women.

        Again, this is why I continue to ask evangelicals who argue against the social inclusion of the LGBT community and call it a sin against God and try to have laws made against their happiness; If you want to tell people who identify as LGBT people whom they may and may not marry, how would you micromanage the love life of an intersexual? Would you deny him/her the right to marry at all?

        The conundrum presented is rather simple: Where it is often said that, “God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve,” then why would God allow intersexuals to be born? Are they not “miracles” as well as any other birth? Do they not deserve compassion, respect, and be allowed to seek happiness through marriage?

        The fact that some people are born intersexual is glaring proof that one’s genotype (genetic predisposition) does not always match one’s phenotype (outward, physical appearance). Therefore, it is clear to me that humans have a spectrum of sexual predispositions irrespective of their outward appearance and that it is a normal genetic variance within the human genome. The dominating genetic trait, of course (and fortunately), is heterosexual.

        So, I’ll stick with the logic and obviously unbiblical but normal birth variations of gender and continue to respect and defend them.

        I corresponded briefly with one, who felt he was really a wolf in a human body.

        Sorry, but that is a categorical error and an extreme hypothetical (and, frankly rather dumb). We are discussing genetic predispositions in human sexuality. You’re trying to say that the LGBT community is delusional. Is the intersex person, delusional no matter which gender he/she chooses to marry? THINK!

        what were the steps of the scientific method, that you used to determine they were immoral?

        My goodness. Your comparison is so illogical I can’t think of a name for it other than completely irrational. Crimes against humanity have NOTHING to do with our debate. The inhumanity of Cheney and Trump is derived from nurturing. We’re talking about GENETIC variations.

    • cadcoke5

      Here is another reply to a message that is not showing up. Note that I don’t think there is any censorship, since both of our messages are having the same problem. Rather, just problems with the Discus system, either as bugs, or limitations that are not apparent to the users.

      We probably cannot continue the discussion mush, unless the Discus issue gets fixed. But, I have a few more comments.

      A person with genitals that are not fully formed is normally clearly one gender or the other. The issue of individuals without fully formed genitals is somewhat tangentially addressed by Jesus in Matt 19:12. Though the actual context is in regards to those who do not marry, “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” But, as I mentioned in one of my earlier replies, these are not the majority of cases.

      I stand by my illustration of the person who felt they were actually a wolf. You seem to feel that guy is truly delusional. Why exclude someone with intact genitals from this sort of delusion?

      Of course, my own views are shaped by my observation that scripture has shown itself to be true, and a faithful record of God’s acts and commands throughout history. This is the basis for my morality. In another posting, you stated that your foundation is science. But, what science can say anything about morality?

      • I remain skeptical that the problem is in Discus. However, I saved the last to my computer. So I’ll cut and paste a few of my salient points here and hope the moderator does not delete it again.

        A person with genitals that are not fully formed is normally clearly one gender or the other.

        According to Intersex Society of North America:

        Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until later in life.

        You should be able to find the article by searching for: “Intersex Society of North America” and “How common is intersex.”

        I have done a little research, and know of no study saying that transgenderism is genetic.

        According to the publication, “Psychology Today”:

        The term transgender refers to people whose sense of their own gender differs from what would be expected based on the sex characteristics with which they are born. A transgender person may identify as a woman despite having been born with male genitalia, for example, and some transgender people do not specifically identify as men or women.

        The mere fact that some people are born intersexual is glaring proof that one’s genotype (genetic predisposition) does not always match one’s phenotype (outward, physical appearance). Therefore, it is clear to me that humans have a spectrum of sexual predispositions irrespective of their outward appearance and that it is a normal genetic variance within the human genome. The dominating genetic trait, of course (and fortunately), is heterosexual.

        I corresponded briefly with one, who felt he was really a wolf in a human body.

        what were the steps of the scientific method, that you used to determine they were immoral?

        Science does not address ethics, so the question is invalid. Humans set moral rules usually based on ancient religious or spiritual beliefs. This is why morality varies among many cultures.

      • I just now posted my reply, then refreshed the page and the reply was gone.

      • I responded to your message but every time I refresh, my response has disappeared. However, I’ve changed search engines and I saved the last you sent to my computer. So I’ll cut and paste a few of your points and my salient points here and hope the moderator does not delete it again.

        A person with genitals that are not fully formed is normally clearly one gender or the other.

        According to Intersex Society of North America:

        Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers
        how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a
        specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1
        in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births. But a lot more people than that are born with
        subtler forms of sex anatomy variations, some of which won’t show up until
        later in life.

        You should be able to find the article by searching for: “Intersex Society of North America” and “How common is intersex.”

        I have done a little research, and know of no study saying that transgenderism is genetic.

        According to the publication, “Psychology Today”:

        The term transgender refers to people whose sense of their
        own gender differs from what would be expected based on the sex characteristics with which they are born. A transgender person may identify as a woman despite having been born with male genitalia, for example, and some transgender people do not specifically identify as men or women.

        The mere fact that some people are born intersexual is glaring proof that one’s genotype (genetic predisposition) does not always match one’s phenotype (outward, physical appearance).

        what were the steps of the scientific method, that you used to determine they were immoral?

        Science does not address ethics so your question is invalid. Humans set moral rules usually based on ancient religious or spiritual beliefs. This is why morality varies among many cultures.

      • It looks like I’ve been barred from the CN Net, at least on this thread. My posts show up on my profile, but not on the page.

  • Godlessness in the PS continues to grow – pray for these kids and for all who want to do what is right.

  • This is but another consequence of what’s come from that cadre of Enlightenment and Masonic theistic rationalists (aka, the 18th-century founding fathers) who most Christian and Patriot leaders have foisted upon the unsuspecting as great Christian leaders!!! Don’t believe them! They’re lying to you!

    “[B]ecause they have … trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1, 7)

    Today’s America is merely reaping the inevitable ever-intensifying whirlwind resulting from the wind sown by the constitutional framers when they replaced Yahweh’s immutable triune moral law with their own capricious man-made traditions and non-optional Biblical responsibilities with optional Enlightenment rights.

    For more, see online Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH” of “Bible Law vs, the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.’ Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 3.

    Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

  • peanut butter

    I don’t even call my grandson by his nickname, I’m not about to start calling anybody by anything but their given name.
    Liberals defend this because it adds to the confusion they so dearly love to keep stirred up.

    • Liberals love this because it speaks to individual freedom and equality. Too many fundamentalists do not believe in those principles and moral values (for a person to live his life the way he wants and seek happiness according to the dictates of his conscience, so long as no one is harmed).

      So, it’s quite simple, really. Liberals are open minded, especially about the right to a free conscience. That tends to frighten a lot of fundamentalists.

      • peanut butter

        How about MY free conscience? Don’t I get to have one, too? I’m all for free conscience, unless your ‘consciousness’ tries to overrule mine. Don’t step on toes unless you want to get yours stomped on. You will have to let me live my life as I want, too, it goes both ways. Do your thing, I won’t bother you, and I’ll sincerely try not to talk bad about what you are doing… live your life. But when you try to get me to go along with your behavior, when you try to involve me in your delusion, you are STEPPING on my toes… I’m bound to stomp back.

        • How about MY free conscience? Don’t I get to have one, too? I’m all for free conscience, unless your ‘consciousness’ tries to overrule mine.

          Precisely! The Constitution gives everyone the right to free conscience (freedom of belief).

          But when you try to get me to go along with your behavior, when you try to involve me in your delusion, you are STEPPING on my toes… I’m bound to stomp back.

          It appears that you are equivocating from a right to believe what you want and what you believe your conscience allows you to do to others (Belief v. action).

          But this is not a legal issue. I consider it to be a ethical issue in the realm of social justice and kindness.

          But let’s look at it another way. Let’s suppose you were a teacher. One of your students had his/her name changed legally, and the name implied the opposite gender from the first. Would you refuse to call that child by his/her new name? How would accepting the new name deny you a free conscience? How is it hurting your freedom to believe as you wish by simply being kind to your students and having them feel comfortable and accepted?

          How far do you think your conscience allows you to go in action?Let’s suppose you are a biology teacher and the school board has mandated that you teach human evolution. But you believe in the Biblical creation. That is your right of conscience. Would you refuse to teach evolution as set forth in the science book?

          But, I assume that you are not a teacher. In that case, you can call anyone whatever and be as disrespectful you apparently want to be. You have your own rules outside of any workplace that might demand otherwise.

          My basic philosophy is to do to others as I would have them do unto me. Thus, I side with Thomas Paine, who said:

          I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Published in three parts, 1794, 1795, and 1807)

          • peanut butter

            If it takes my happiness away to make you happy, then you have just violated your own rules. Period

          • Well, a teacher disrespecting a student makes me unhappy. I’d much rather we all show respect for each other and be happy doing just that.

            But, of course, my social philosophy of respect and equality is a huge breach of your religious views, but I certainly respect your right to your opinions. However, one’s religious beliefs have no place in a public school classroom.

          • peanut butter

            Freedom of religion, and freedom of expression of those beliefs, too, don’t forget. There were NO stipulations put on the freedom of expression as to where we can express those beliefs. All the government buildings being built were adorned with scripture and Biblical scenes… do you really think that our Forefathers did NOT intend for the Christian religion to play the role here? They used the Bible primer as a school book, only after using the very Bible as a school book. When this teacher was in college, I’m sure he never once thought that he would be forced to lay into someone’s delusions. He went to school to be a teacher, not a baby-coddler, not a liar to himself.

          • All the government buildings being built were adorned with scripture and Biblical scenes…

            “All” government buildings? And your evidence is? But no matter. Hammurabi is there as well and so are other “law givers” from history. Doesn’t that mean that the Founders wanted other religions to play a role as well? NO! Actually, it means that we’ve inherited many of our laws from different “law givers.” Most of our basic laws we obtained from British common law and their’s from Roman law. The fact that a religious carving appears on a building means only that religious people carved it or had it carved. Many carvings still exist of Roman gods. It does not mean they were factual?

            Check your Bible. According to the myth, the Israelites carved a golden calf while Moses was on the mount receiving the Ten Commandments from an angel and a god cleverly disguised as a burning bush. Such is the authenticity of that unauthenticated story. Shouldn’t we, then, have carvings of a burning bush?

            They used the Bible primer as a school book, only after using the very Bible as a school book.

            Yes, because in most cases in early America, that was the only book available. It was the predominant religion and often the only reading matter. That lends no evidence to its objective authority. Other nations in history had their gods as well and carvings and scriptures to back it up. Does that mean those gods were real?

            I think you are being very myopic. But that is not a condescension. Every believer of any religion is myopic in believing theirs to be THE TRUE religion and all others are heresy. Christianity is no different.

            I’m sure he never once thought that he would be forced to lay into someone’s delusions.

            I’m sorry, sir, but he is fundamentally absent of empathy and understanding of science. It is all an emotional thing. And what makes his “delusion” worst of all is that he will reject science where it offends his religious beliefs.

            Thus, the teacher prefers to be willfully ignorant of the nature of genetics or of kindness and respect.

            So much angst and hatred would vanish from our population if only most folks were educated in the humanities (science, philosophy, logic (informal or formal), and critical thinking–which is part of logic).

            It matters not a whit to me what he believes (or you) or that millions actually are in your camp (there was a time when I was as well). But what bothers me is when fundamentalists, in their zeal, disregard the Constitution and push their ancient beliefs on the rest of our modern society while condescending to all who do not think like them or bow to their beliefs. They demand respect, but tend to have no respect for those who are “different.”

            That is the reason I post on this site–to try to add a bit of Reason and explain the science and logic–to bring in a molecule of balance.

            I’m sure you and I could be friends and share a glass of beer or wine over debates about the clash of religious belief v. Reason. Perhaps someday we shall. I’d like that.

  • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

    I Pray for the Will of God for this teacher to be done.

    • Charles des Barres

      I pray for the teacher to be penalized for not respecting his students.

      • Not affirming someone in their psychosis does not equal disrespect.

        • Charles des Barres

          It doesn’t matter if you think it’s psychosis. It is what that person has asked to be called.

          • Above all it matters what God thinks.

          • Charles des Barres

            And he’s not here to tell us, so we do the fair and honorable thing.

          • That is not true. God is here to tell us through His Word and His Holy Spirit and there is nothing fair or honorable about calling Him a liar.

          • Charles des Barres

            I didn’t call God a liar. There is no way the entire code for how we live our lives could be contained in the pages of a single book.

          • Where are those other books?

          • Actually an anthology of many books translated from different languages complete with errors in fact, in logic, and in translations by selective editing.

            Incidentally, I’ve apparently been blocked from responding to cadcoke5, and it does not seem to be his action–apparently it is either Disqus or a moderator. I suspect the latter, so I’m testing in my response to you to see if I’m blocked from the site entirely.

          • Charles des Barres

            You are loud and clear sir.

      • Ginger

        Troll

  • BobInBpt

    How sad ! I am sure that when this young man went to college to be a teacher, that he was never told that he would have to lie in class and play along with and worse yet, reinforce, student’s mental disorders.

  • John Kluge, the former orchestra teacher at Brownsburg High School in Indiana, has suffered a major miscarriage of justice at the hands of mentally ill administrators.

    • jillybean

      No teacher has absolute speech rights, and he or she is not exempted from federal/state policy because it conflicts with religious belief. Department of Education policies re-issued under Trump mandate that a TG student be called by his or her preferred name. In this case, the teacher is not only violating federal policy but also the wishes of the child’s parents. If the district hadn’t acted, it would have faced major legal nightmares. Does this teacher have the right to demand that an entire school district risk a major lawsuit–in which it would lose–because of his personal beliefs?

      • And again I say….John Kluge, the former orchestra teacher at Brownsburg High School in Indiana, has suffered a major miscarriage of justice at the hands of mentally ill administrators.

  • American4Truth

    Lord come quickly, the world has become a den of sexual perversion.

    • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥

      Amen! Lord come quickly.Amen!