Printer-friendly version
Author:
Blog About:
Such a Christian reaction, I don't think.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/christian-parents-to-su...
BigCloset TopShelf
TopShelf TG Fiction in the BigCloset!
The Hatbox
Checks can be made out & sent to:
Joyce Melton
1001 Third St.
Space 80
Calimesa, CA 92320
USA
Note: $6000 is the operating, maintenance and upgrade budget. Amounts received in excess of the $6000 will be applied to long term debt accrued over the last 19 years.
If you prefer, you can donate through Patreon:
Become a Patron!
Thank you!
Comments
What if the skirt was a plaid???
Gee, Ang, I thought the only idiots like this were in the USA. The big question is, if they withdrew the oldest son, and chose to home school him because a male child in his class wore a skirt, why in hell did the other son go to school? I think it was to make a second scene, so sad.
Karen
Sue thy neighbour
Or these days, likely money-grubbing opportunists >:(
Teri Ann
"Reach for the sun."
They appear to be mixing
the law of the land with their interpretation of biblical law. The school has to abide by the former not the latter, they are way out of line. I hope they lose their case and have costs granted against them.
Angharad
Bibical interpretation
I'm glad you mentioned "their interpretation of biblical law"
Everyone who wants to quote the bible of man shall not wear women's clothes or women wear men's always brings up good ol Deuteronomy 22:5 KJV “A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God."
Definitely positively simple and clear. Can't misinterpret that one can we? Or can we? Understanding it was mistranslated from the very beginning, I guess we can. I'll try to keep it simple. The original was about armor not clothes. A girl should not wear a man's armor, nor the man trade his armor for the woman's cloak to flee.
Keep in mind those who interpret the verses of the bible or any other religion fall to the weakness of man's desire for control of all. Joan of Ark was burned at the stake for wearing pants. Many others were burned at the stake for translating the Catholic Latin Religion into English and it finally hit the Gutenberg Press and went viral where the Pope no longer was Top Dog in the connection between God and the masses.
So to piss everyone off since I am an equal opportunity disgusting person. God and Jesus never taught nor preached "religion". Religion is a man made organization to control the masses. Each one the right one if you wish to save your "eternal soul" and or be Top Dog in the pecking order of who belongs to the "right church".
Believe what you want. It's your life and your choice. If Deuteronomy 22:5 is to be accepted word for word the way it was translated then a hell of a lot of women are going to hell for wearing pants. That's not counting all those men who wore skirts or tunics before pants were invented. Personally, I have an awful lot of jeans I don't quite think I can hide as God has already seen me.
Take everyone's interpretation of whatever flavor of religion they are spouting with a grain of salt. I'm not a prophet and so far I'm not sure I have met any in this life.
always,
Barb
Oklahoma born and raised cowgirl
hmmm
Hmmm. If my intel is correct, Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament section of 'The Bible', A.K.A. Genesis. If that is accurate then that whole section is all about Judaism. If that is the case, it doesn't apply to the Church of England(or any other church affiliated with Christianity).
But, just for the sake of argument, if all the historical depictions are true, back in the time of Jesus and so on; EVERYBODY wore the same long gown/shirt garment. Also, only Roman Centurions cut their hair short for tactical reason.
Now for my own personal note: There is no actual proof that any religion is correct, that heaven exists or 'God' is on somebody's side(if 'God' exists at all). As I said, that's my personal note, feel free to ignore it if ya wanna.
quidquid sum ego, et omnia mea semper; Ego me.
alecia Snowfall
Biblical scholars they're not
If they were consistent with their religion, they woul have been taught that Jesus came to forge a new covenant. So, yes, you are correct, Christians should ignore social rules instituted in the old testament. My hobby horse has always been that the people who trot out that particular verse, probably did not follow all of the other 'prohibitions."
Deuteronomy is great fun to read
We break those rules on a daily basis. Do you have tassels on your mantle? Does your roof have a parapet? Stoning rape victims (provided they were raped in a town)? Do you know anyone who married his brother's widow regardless of whether he already had a wife?
Of course slavery is taken for granted.
My personal favorite: Clothes of mixed fibres (admittedly that is further specified but anyway)
And as to clothes: What makes a garment inheritly male or female? Personally I can only think of one or possibly two garments that clearly fullfills any anatomical gender function.
Well Said Barb
So happy you took the time to post those pithy remarks.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Deuteronomy
It would seem that some scholars think this may refer to armour or men hiding as women to avoid fighting as opposed to simple clothing - which changes regularly as to what is seen as being appropriate to either sex.
http://canyonwalkerconnections.com/transgender-people-deuter...
Armor?
There was another reason behind the cross dressing rule and the one about blending cloth. Both of those were things characteristic of(although not exclusive to) the Phoenician religious priest-classes and prohibiting those expressions of faith and open gender variance was a part of the generations-long campaign of conquest and co-option waged by the people who would eventually become known to history as the Hebrews. It was very similar in many ways to the campaigns of genocide and violence waged by successive religions in that particular lineage and to modern atrocities wrought in the name of religious warfare elsewhere in the world.
Personally I'm not fond of any of them, even the Buddhists can get all genocidal given half a chance. Tools for power laden with lovely sounding platitudes no one actually pays attention to.
Right, sorry if that offended some folks(Pretty likely).
Just my $.02
Abby
CofE stance on transgender
I missed this news item in the summer about a little vote in Synod Church of England votes to explore transgender services
One quote in the article - the Bishop of Liverpool, the Right Reverend Paul Bayes, says: "As the world listens to us today, the world needs to hear us say that LGBTI orientation and identity is not a crime, not a sickness and not a sin."
It would be interesting to know when they took their child out of school and began proceedings and also why the younger child was left at the school when the older one was removed for a similar issue. It all goes to lessen the impact of any claim they might think they have
If they don't have a son in
If they don't have a son in school, they can't sue later.
The entertaining element is
The entertaining element is that this was in Portsmouth.
Every time a royal marine detachment comes in to the docks from shipboard duty a number of them tend to dress quite 'flamboyantly' (i.e. they give Beverly Taff out clubbing a run for her money :) ).
My concern is that this is the spillover from the 'Trump Effect'.
By the way, in the UK the parents don't have a leg to stand on. Whilst they claim the Gender Recognition Act says that the birth certificate cannot be amended until 18 those who are under medical care (regardless of age) are suitably protected.
I'd love to suggest a troop of royals on leave turn up on the doorstep of the Rowe's :)
Jenny
Persephone
Non sum qualis eram
not possible
No one could give Bev a run!
Madeline Anafrid Bell
Bev?
Didn't Bev finally give up on wearing four feathered boas at the same time?
quidquid sum ego, et omnia mea semper; Ego me.
alecia Snowfall
Trump Effect?
Easy on our leader. He's stepped to the plate and donated $1M to the victims of our hurricanes.
Of course IF he's really worth the seven billion he claims that's equal to the average person in the U.S. donating $11.
Which is why every time I donate $11 to a worthy cause I have my press secretary make a formal announcement.
Jill
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Pompey?
No, it ain't in Pompey, it be over on the Island. That there haunt of strange people that is Hampshire's equivalent of Bodmin (or Arkansas, for the American readers). It's a local island, for local people. Are you local?
A comment passed online was very apposite, which asked if a child was also too young to make decisions on cancer treatment or other, similar life-threatening illnesses. The parents, however, have made a particularly jaw-dropping assertion, which is that one of the laws I work very closely with, the EA 10 (Equality Act 2010) does not apply in the UK until someone is 18.
REALLY?
I should explain. The EA 10 lists a number of protected characteristics, which include age, gender, disability, race (simplest word for it), religion, marital/civil partnership status, gender transition and others, and makes it a crime to discriminate on the basis of any of them, or that a victim is PERCEIVED to possess any if the characteristics. For gender transition, my specific work area (I'm off to a law review in two hours), the category includes undergoing, having undergone or proposing to undergo gender transition.
The assertion that the EA 10 only applies to those over 18 therefore suggests that a school, say, could ban all non-white children.
Morons and bigots.
"My right to not have you in my world"
My right to not have you existing in my world because you upset me...
isn't really a right but an insane megalomaniac delusion of entitlement.
But if there was such a right, wouldn't it work both ways?
~Veronica
"Government will only recognize 2 genders, male + female,
as assigned at birth-" (In his own words:)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1lugbpMKDU
It is also about the parents
It is also about the parents not understanding about boundaries. Those Christian parents have their personal life confused with their public life. Everyone has the right to have who they want or not want in their personal life, everyone also has to deal with everyone else in their public life. Going to school is part of one's public life and they have no right to not have to deal with others while using the commons.
I have to deal with people at work that I would not have the time of day to deal with in my personal life. I am polite and professional to them at work. I see them in public and just walk by, I will not have anything to do with them in my private life. If they would asked me why I would tell them. If someone would bring them up and they know the situation I will remind them again why I do not want to hear about them. It might seem cold but I just do not want to spend any time dealing with some people if I do not have to.
Christian Legal Centre
Speaking for the offended Christian family, "Andrea Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “Six-year-olds are far too young to consider issues as complex as gender and sexuality.”
By that reasoning, the six year old transgender youth is too young to consider and express their own gender and sexuality. However, the six year old Christian youth can consider how the transgender youth expresses their gender and sexuality so as to become ill over it. Then the Christian parents want to dictate how the other youth expresses her/him self to conform to their Christian beliefs. Hypocrisy much?
Many Christian
sects like to say that the Old Testament doesn't apply, yet in Matthew 5:17 Jesus supposedly said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
It's just more religious cherry-picking that all religions are so good at.
Anyway, there's a fig tree I need to go and curse.
Bye for now.
The sad part of Matthew 5:17
The sad part of Matthew 5:17 is that many sects used that quote to try to justify not following the OT. They really cherry pick from the passage and say that Jesus fulfill the Laws if the Prophets from the last part of the passage. They do not take into account even of he said to fulfill the Laws of the Prophets that was saying which meant to teach the Laws of the Prophets by living by them.
Words
The word from the Old Testament translated as abomination actually meant "unsuited to ritual". Abomination from the Latin meant "avoiding bad luck omens"; it was just a lazy job of translating. What Deuteronomy was saying was that crossdressing priests, shrimp, clothes made from two kinds of yarn and other such things were non-traditional and should not be used in Hebrew rites. What the early translators meant is kind of up for grabs, it really makes no sense at all. And then the word abomination changed meaning because people could not understand something subtle and chose to believe that if it was criticized with a word they did not know, it must be all bad.
Cherry picking doesn't really come into it because those are not cherries, they're flying squid.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
It is the same with other so called famous versus.
the old saying used for burning and killing suspected witches, "thou shall not suffer a with too live."
The problems with the bible and taking it word for word:
1. It was written by man
2. It was written in another ancient language Hebrew for the old Testament, and then a ascetic greek for most of the New Testament.
3. They were translated several times each from the previous translation, so things were added and subtracted due to normal human error. So lets say from Hebrew to Ascetic Greek; from Ascetic Greek to Latin; and then from Latin to English, French, German, Spanish, etc..., Even the translation from the Dead Sea scrolls are suspect because we know that since each one was done by hand and when a typo happened it was stored away not destroyed as a sacred document. But it is the closet we have access to the original.
4. The New Testament as we know it was created by the Romans when they made Christianity the official religion, they removed things they considered culturally questionable to how they wanted things to be, or that questioned the empire or emperor, etc..
4. The meaning and usage of words have changed so many times, to what is used today it will make you head spin, just look at the English dictionary on how many ways you can use a word and the number of meaning a single word can have, it is scary.
But these things are all inconvenient to those that want to say the Bible is the word of god from his mouth to the pen. Even if that is so a human was in between. Christians also regularly point to the old testament when saying how something should not be done and omit the new testament about forgiveness of sins and so on. but that gets in the way of what morals they want to push so they will go to the old testament and ignore the new testament as it suits there needs.
John 8:7 - “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
Basically it says we are not to judge people for there actions outside the laws of the land.
"Cortana is watching you!"
I heard the parents on Radio 4
They seem nice people who just want everything their way and who seem very fixed in the binary. I suspect it's not their children who are upset but the parents who can't cope with something a little challenging and the irony of what they said about 6 year olds not knowing what the concept of gender is defeats their own argument, plus they suggested it should all be done in private because transgender children could be bullied, which is exactly what they're doing.
Angharad
Radio 4
I heard them, too. If the children were distressed, I fear it was because the parents had told them boys shouldn't wear girls' clothes, which is not really a very nice thing to do at all. Apart from anything else how other people's children dress or present themselves is none of their business. When I was that age back in the paleolithic early 1960s, my mother (who was in the rag trade and so knew lots of people who weren't at all binary) gently explained that usually daddies loved mummies and mummies loved daddies, but sometimes ladies loved other ladies and men loved other men and there was absolutely nothing wrong with that. But of course, my family are all atheists so we couldn't possibly understand Mr and Mrs Rowes' particular kind of "Christian" love.
Speaker
Prats!
I have just seen the pair of prats on the lunchtime news and what a pair of obnoxious 'christians' small C they were boasting about having strong christian values apparently forgetting about the past abuse to children by so called Christian Children's Homes.
They make me sick to my stomach. The worrying thing is that their children are taking this attitude into the future.
Christina
completely oblivious
They were completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy
Why do "godly" folk not get that other people have rights too?
Christian
Disclaimer: I am a Christian, a fundamentalist Christian. I believe the Bible as written and try my best to live according to it's teaching.
That said, I'm friends with two pastors who both have degrees in theology, one a doctorate and the other a masters. Both of them agree that if you are trying to put together a theology on a particular point, cross-dressing for example, you need to have at least three (3) passages on the same subject treating it in the same way. I challenged the pastor with the doctorate to build the theology that cross-dressing was a sin, in that I asked him to give scriptures that I could study to get God's view on the subject. He could only come up with Duet 22:5.
The second pastor, the one with the masters, once said in a sermon from the pulpit, "A lot of people try to make a sin out things that God really doesn't care about." Mind you he wasn't speaking directly about cross-dressing, but this was after he and I had had a discussion about my cross-dressing. I would also point out that this same pastor, a pastor of a charismatic (Spirit filled, Pentecostal etc.) church, considers me to be a valuable member of his congregation. He and his son are coming to my house at the end of the month to help me paint my house.
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
Ich bin eine Mann
On behalf of the supposed unheard majority.
Listening to their interview on daytime TV and the local news that is why they allege to be suing . They say "their son was confused as to why the child dressed as both a boy and a girl" and potentially faced discipline under the schools anti bullying policy. A good excuse and maybe they should both learn and teach their son tolerance and that the whole bible is a road map drawn up by many including pre christian Judaic Scholars and other men relying on memory and not declared as the infallible word of god. Diversity is written in under quotes such as"my father's house has many mansions". As for quotes the bible has been translated through several languages in antiquity to get to the many versions used today the impact hits upon even core matters as to the meaning of the word translating as virgin so to be honest how accurate is it.
Hiding their bigotry under the mask of the common good i.e on behalf of everyone is a normal approach . OK the school seems to have not conducted consultations with the other parents but given the declared policy of the Diocese ( It is a Church School though funded through the local authority) why should they ? Even if they had consulted I doubt if it would have done any good the objectors would have just objected earlier. They are being backed by The Christian Legal Centre which for our US members is allied with the ADF and similar in approach).
Good luck to the child and good luck to the school for being prepared to support the child/parents wishes as to gender even if it is acknowledged to be difficult at that age to be certain of where in the spectrum the child actually is.