Your challenge: Rank from “Most Untrustworthy” to “Least Untrustworthy” the following unethical teachers, all the subjects of news stories over the past 30 days:
The candidates:
A. Jack Conkling, a high school social studies teacher in Buhler, Kansas, who began a rant this on his Facebook page like this:
“All this talk in the news about gay marriage recently has finally driven me to write. Gay marriage is wrong because homosexuality is wrong. The Bible clearly states it is sin. Now I do not claim it to be a sin any worse than other sins. It ranks in God’s eyes the same as murder, lying, stealing, or cheating…”
Yes, he had students among his Facebook friends, who made sure everyone in the school was aware of Conkling’s views.
B. A so far unidentified teacher at Salinas Elementary School in suburban San Antonio ordered more than 20 students in her kindergarten class to line up and slug a six-year-old classmate accused of being a bully. Some hit him more than once. I do not think she entirely grasps the anti-bullying concept.
C. You knew there had to be one of these: Rachel Farrell, a Bangor (Penn.) High School English teacher was sentenced to jail for initiating a sexual affair with an underage student just two months after getting married in 2010. The boy testified that he had sex with Farrell in cars and in rooms at the local hotel, booked by Teacher. She allegedly had sex with three other teenage students over the same period shortly after her marriage, but those chivalrous lads refused to cooperate with police.
And no, Rachel is no longer married.
So: who do you trust more?
The Kansas homophobe?
The Texas bully?
Or the Pennsylvania predator?
_____________________________
Sources:
Graphic: Halfway Between the Gutter and the Stars
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
The Kansas homophobe.
His values on the subject are at least identical to the values of those who freed the slaves and those who wrote the Constitution. Neither the Texas bully or the Pennsylvania predator can even lay claim to that.
As I see it, Conkling doesn’t even belong on the list. In fact, I support him. That “bullying” episode merely shows how stupid modern teachers can be, even when they mean well. That Rachel Farrell woman, however, should be locked up and the key thrown away.
You don’t see that a teacher publicly announcing his contempt for his own students is unprofessional and destructive to the teacher-student relationship? Again, it’s no different from Natalie Munroe…the distinction is the reason for the expressed hate. And the reason doesn’t matter. The expression does.
No I don’t, Jack. As an adult and a teacher, he has not just the right, but the duty to explain right from wrong to his pupils. You’re falling into the mindset that to oppose perversion is automatically a “hate crime”. I’d maintain that the crime exists when one allows mixed up kids to continue on a road to self-degradation and self-destruction.
Did Conkling set an “effeminate” boy before the class and hold him up to ridicule? That WOULD have put him down with those other two. All he did was state his moral objections on his website and (I hope) provide some moral guidance to those students he might have who are falling prey to the perverse influences of the modern pop culture. Unless you accept the incredible premise that children are born into deviancy, you cannot condemn Mr. Conkling. He’s doing what any moral adult authority figure should do for the children in his charge.
Conkling’s views are in line with those of the Kansas government.
You and I disagree about homosexuality so I wont even argue that point with you. The problem I have is why he has students as friends on Facebook? I dont think that its approriate unless its a special page just for them and him to communicate and not his personal page.
It’s illegal for him to be instilling any morality on students that is based on the bible. It’s that simple. We try to deal in facts in school, not superstitious nonsense.
Nonsense, tgt. Schools peddle superstitious nonsense daily.
Nor is it illegal to attempt to “instill morality” based on ANY text, provided that the government isn’t promulgating a specific faith. Let’s look at The Ten Commandments, for example. We can agree that 1-5 are pretty specific to the Jewish and Christian faiths (though slightly different in presentation), and referenced in Islam, and therefore it would be reasonable to NOT teach these in public schools – they’re all about how you’re supposed to deal with God. However, 6-10 are more or less reasonable guidelines for dealing with each other – in other words, living in a civil society. It would be ludicrous for schools not to teach the behaviors implied in them simply because they showed up in the bible first.
You’re arguing against a strawman. You absolutely can instill that killing and stealing is wrong, and I never said you couldn’t.
If your beliefs are religiously motivated, they simply can’t be taught. You made the leap that all beliefs that align with any religion can’t be taught. That’s unfounded.
Let me give you a couple examples:
1) “Stealing is wrong because God says so. When you steal something, you are damaging God.”
2) “Stealing from people causes them to lose their stuff. How would you feel if your stuff was taken? … Yes, you wouldn’t like it. It hurts people and damages society when people steal.”
You’re the one making leaps, tgt. I didn’t argue the justification for the moral lesson (“God says so”). You’re the one that said “It’s illegal for him to be instilling any morality on students that is based on the bible.” In our culture, it IS based on the Bible. Our laws were set up reflecting Christian values..
That may or may not be a good thing, but the fact is that many of the moral codes used in civilized societies were based in (or at least promulgated) by religion. Here we enter a chicken-or-egg situation; did the moral stricture emerge FROM the religion, even from the divine, or did the religion EMBRACE and promulgate it because it was a way to keep things in the streets down to a dull roar?
I’m personally inclined towards the latter explanation. But I don’t underestimate faith’s role in the human experience.
You need a history lessen. The laws (in general) weren’t set up to reflect Christian values and our not based on Christian values. That many of the laws overlap with Christian values is, as I said above, perfectly fine.
Some laws have been based on Christianity (and other religious credos), but they tend to be overturned as unconstitutional or replaced with secular reasoning.
Your second paragraph is a false analogy. There is no chicken-egg question. The moral strictures predate christianity and judaism and crop up close to identically in other cultures as well.
Your closing is a wonderful non sequitur as well. What does people having faith and that fact affecting them have anything to do with this issue?
tgt, you state that “The laws (in general) weren’t set up to reflect Christian values and our not based on Christian values.”
I respectfully disagree. Our nation is set up as a democratic republic that creates laws the reflect the will and mindset of the people. The will and mindset of the people in this case are very much a reflection of their Christian values. Though our founding fathers were largely deist the general public never has been. We are, based purely on the demographics you could easily pull up on the internet, a country in which a great majority of the people identify themselves as christian.
These laws will not, nor should they change, until the mindset of the majority agrees.
Laws set limitations on human behavior. When you drive your car you dont speed badly. Note that I say ‘badly’… I mean you keep it probably within 10 mph of the speed limit. Without the limit you would be unhindered and thereby have not only the ability, but the opportunity to seriously endanger yourself and others. This is the manner in which I understand Biblical law.
Without the clear limits set within the biblical laws, human behavior becomes deplorable quickly. I’ll focus on sexual sin: Is sex outside marriage wrong? Biblically it is, societally though it is generally accepted (note, I’m not just stating adultery, rather extramarital). However we can agree that there is a point at which sex, unrestricted becomes harmful. Where is that line? Who decides where that line is? Why? To assume that you or I, that even the general public has the wisdom to determine that line is dubious in my eyes. Such a moral imperative must come from an external source because we *all* have the tendency to push our limitations.
R,
I don’t follow your argument. It doesn’t matter that the founders were mostly Deists and Christians – the constitution and declaration are clear that the laws are not intended to be based on religion. The enlightenment was a much bigger influence than was Christianity.
Yes, the U.S. is a republic, but that doesn’t back your claims. The republic was set up to protect the minority from the majority. That’s what the constitution and courts do. Many of our laws overlap Christian values, but that’s not the same as being set up to reflect Christian values. The former is fine. The latter is plainly unconstitutional.
Your argument that the bible is a necessary check on human behavior is just bunk. Are people running around killing each other in secular countries? How about in China and India that have severe Christian minorities? The bible puts a full moratorium on premarital sex, yet out of wedlock protected sex with a committed partner is clearly not dangerous. If the bible were an actual standard, why is the latter not allowed?
You claim that people in general cannot determine morality. That flies against sanity. Who do you think wrote the Bible? It was just (unfortunately ignorant) people. You claim to require an extra-human moral source, but there isn’t one. Are you going to start raping and pillaging the countryside, now, or are you going to do what you think is right, learning from the social sciences, composition of the world, history, and your conscience?
“R, I don’t follow your argument. It doesn’t matter that the founders were mostly Deists and Christians – the constitution and declaration are clear that the laws are not intended to be based on religion.”
Please refer to the section of the constitution in which this is outlined. My reading demonstrates that the constitution gives huge protections to Religious institutions against governmental influence, NOT the other way around. When you cant find the section in which it exists, concede that it does not. “Separation of Church and state” was a phrase used in a letter from Jefferson to concerned clergy, assuring them that religious institutions would have protections from persecution by the government so as not to repeat the persecutions that were seen in England against the puritains.
“The bible puts a full moratorium on premarital sex, yet out of wedlock protected sex with a committed partner is clearly not dangerous. If the bible were an actual standard, why is the latter not allowed?”
You are looking at extremely short-sighted effects, and disregarding emotional and familial harm. I’ll focus on this one area because you brought it up — Sex is by no means immoral, within a positive context. The only positive context outlaid in the bible is between man and wife. Why not between two consenting adults in a committed relationship? Without the overarching and permanent bond of marriage there can be no real promise of a ‘committed’ relationship. As a result a even well intentioned people share sexual relations with partners who will never be their permanent mate.
Why is that a negative? If permanent commitment can be agreed to be the most positive arrangement — and I doubt you could make any strong argument that it isnt, socially, biologically, morally or otherwise — than protection of that arrangement is paramount. Extramarital sex (prior or otherwise) leads to dangerous attachments to others, memories, and points for comparison which have the potential to undermine and destroy marriages. Many times the feelings that are projected out from these interactions go quite deep and leave emotional damage that prevents intimacy with a spouse without significant intention to work through that damage.
Finally you state:
“You claim that people in general cannot determine morality. That flies against sanity.”
Incorrect. You inferred that from what I stated. I said that people basically understand that there is a moral ‘line’, yet cannot hope to determine it. Only Sociopathic people feel no tug when they commit reprehensible acts, and yet each step towards immoral action makes the next easier even for the most ‘moral’. How many politicians and preachers have you seen taken down by sexual scandal. Universally if you read their stories it starts as small negative (morally speaking) decisions that are generally socially acceptable, but gradually move to progressively darker and darker decisions. That was my intention in stating what I stated.
Neither you or I have the ability to determine morality because our understanding of morality is momentary at best. Our previous experiences greatly effect our concept. We can most certainly make moral judgements relative to our current mindset and feel the ‘moral tug’. However my contention is that Humans, even and especially as an aggregate cannot come up with a moral standard. We live in a spectrum and always will. We call for a moral absolute, but cannot determine it and therefore it must be external. I liken it to how we can understand that the physical world has laws that govern it and we can feel them out, yet we cannot define them… they are externally defined.
r,
tgt, you state that “The laws (in general) weren’t set up to reflect Christian values and our not based on Christian values.”
Please refer to the section of the constitution in which this is outlined. My reading demonstrates that the constitution gives huge protections to Religious institutions against governmental influence, NOT the other way around. When you cant find the section in which it exists, concede that it does not. “Separation of Church and state” was a phrase used in a letter from Jefferson to concerned clergy, assuring them that religious institutions would have protections from persecution by the government so as not to repeat the persecutions that were seen in England against the puritains.
You can’t protect religion from government unless you keep religion out of government. When religious ideas start making laws, they automatically impede the religious freedom of anyone who does not subscribe to the specific religious ideas. Read the federalist papers and it becomes clear what the motivations were for the constitution and this simple logic was fully understood. That government was going to be separated from religion was one of the main grievances of the anti-federalists.
“The bible puts a full moratorium on premarital sex, yet out of wedlock protected sex with a committed partner is clearly not dangerous. If the bible were an actual standard, why is the latter not allowed?”
You are looking at extremely short-sighted effects, and disregarding emotional and familial harm. I’ll focus on this one area because you brought it up — Sex is by no means immoral, within a positive context. The only positive context outlaid in the bible is between man and wife. Why not between two consenting adults in a committed relationship? Without the overarching and permanent bond of marriage there can be no real promise of a ‘committed’ relationship. As a result a even well intentioned people share sexual relations with partners who will never be their permanent mate.
Begging the question. You’re assuming the bible is accurrate to prove the bible is accurate. Fail. It’s also completely false that marriage is required for commitment.
Why is that a negative? If permanent commitment can be agreed to be the most positive arrangement — and I doubt you could make any strong argument that it isnt, socially, biologically, morally or otherwise — than protection of that arrangement is paramount.
You assume that only the best possible state can be good (You’re “protection of that arrangement is paramount” language). The best possible state for raising a child requires millions of dollars. Therefore, it is paramount that all people past child bearing age give all their money to parents or prospective parents. That’s what your logic suggests. Do you see the silliness? It is not necessary to be in the best state to be good.
Extramarital sex (prior or otherwise) leads to dangerous attachments to others, memories, and points for comparison which have the potential to undermine and destroy marriages. Many times the feelings that are projected out from these interactions go quite deep and leave emotional damage that prevents intimacy with a spouse without significant intention to work through that damage.
Replace “extramarital sex” with “mingling of the sexes” and your argument is just as valid. Just because bad things can happen does not mean they will or that we should limit the underlying situation.
Finally you state:
“You claim that people in general cannot determine morality. That flies against sanity.”
Incorrect. You inferred that from what I stated. I said that people basically understand that there is a moral ‘line’, yet cannot hope to determine it. Only Sociopathic people feel no tug when they commit reprehensible acts, and yet each step towards immoral action makes the next easier even for the most ‘moral’. How many politicians and preachers have you seen taken down by sexual scandal. Universally if you read their stories it starts as small negative (morally speaking) decisions that are generally socially acceptable, but gradually move to progressively darker and darker decisions. That was my intention in stating what I stated.
Neither you or I have the ability to determine morality because our understanding of morality is momentary at best. Our previous experiences greatly effect our concept. We can most certainly make moral judgements relative to our current mindset and feel the ‘moral tug’. However my contention is that Humans, even and especially as an aggregate cannot come up with a moral standard. We live in a spectrum and always will. We call for a moral absolute, but cannot determine it and therefore it must be external. I liken it to how we can understand that the physical world has laws that govern it and we can feel them out, yet we cannot define them… they are externally defined.
I think your response to my statement reflects the accuracy of my statement. Even if you think your twisted logic somehow doesn’t imply that humans cannot determine morality, you’re previous argument (that we need the bible to determine an endpoint line that we fall short of) is still bunk based on my previous arguments that you did not engage with: That societies have been perfectly fine without the bible and that the bible is nothing more than human generated morality.
Ohhhh… take your ubiquitous “straw man” and stuff it, TGT. You’re back to using verbacicide (I just coined that term!) to cover up what you’ve already made plain before; that you have a vicious contempt for anything having to do with God in general and Christianity in particular AND that you’ll go to any leap of mislogic to defame and denounce it. Okay. We GET it already!
Not fair, Steven. That tgt argues from the perspective of an atheist is a given – and his right. Doesn’t make him wrong on this point. Other things do, however. Busy day today (and tonight). Hopefully, I’ll get to them tomorrow.
Arthur: I have nothing personal against an honest atheist. I’ve known Nazis, communists, Obamanists and KKK members who were likewise honest about what they were and didn’t try to press their beliefs on me by hook or by crook. And I returned the courtesy. What I can’t stand is when some start talking around the issue using impressive sounding, but empty words to cover up a full blown phobia. Christophobia. I’d stand in the front line to protect TGT’s God-given right to be godless. In fact, I have! What I can’t stand is using pseudo intellectulism as a smokescreen for an emotional dysfunction. When TGT refrains from this, I sometimes find (to our mutual amazement!) that we can agree on things or rationally argue a point.
SMP,
Project much?
I “project” on the outdoor screen of reality, TGT. I’ll leave you to the Sundance crowd.
I’ll take that as a snarky response because you don’t understand the term. Projecting is when you assign your own actions to other people. Something that you your previous post demonstrated quite well.
It’s not my fault that strawmen are often argued against.
As Arthur said, my feelings about Christianity do not make my argument invalid, just like your feelings about Christianity do not make your arguments invalid.
When your “feelings” are predicated on a lack of reality, they become just that. Feelings. Haphazard feelings have been evil’s greatest abettor throughout history as they, being without an anchor OF reality, can be manipulated into “popular passion”. That’s where the herd mentality begins and freedom ends. That’s what this country is teetering on the brink of right now.
Agreed, tgt but I think he’s just a bigoted nitwit that didn’t know any better. His FB page lists Jesus as his first interest. And if you read the full text he comes across just like any other Jesus freak who means well but trips up in the process.
Unfortunately his school district is behind the times with instituting policies to protect the kids. Conkling is young himself and could most likely respond to some gentle guidance, can’t say so much for Jack’s other two examples above.
Gregory: A HUGE number of people list Jesus and His teachings as their first guide in life. Get used to it. His own “gentle guidance” is the source of the world’s greatest repository of wisdom. I witness to it. Judge His life next to your’s and honestly ask yourself who the freak is.
His own “gentle guidance” is the source of the world’s greatest repository of wisdom.
Name one piece of “Jesus’s” wisdom that doesn’t predate his time period.
Jesus Himself made it plain that he came to fulfill the Scriptures, TGT. You can find much of Jesus’ teachings inherent in the preceding words of the Prophets. Jesus put it together with His own unique perspective in His ministry and gave it both life and meaning… and with the backing of the utmost Authority. Before Jesus, Scripture was confined to a small, but important nation on the crossroads of the civilized world. Because of Him, the message was projected to the four corners of the earth. Even if you doubt His divinity, you cannot deny that His wisdom has shaken the world as has no other man in history.
to the four corners of the earth
SMP, can you kindly point to where one could find the corners are on a sphere?
Don’t be silly, Gregory. It’s an ancient term still very much in use.
So, you’re admitting that your previous statement was untrue and are moving the goalposts. Got it. Also, my point was that all of Christian wisdom sprouted up in other cultures without any need for Jesus or Judaism. Your argument that Jesus brought scripture to a wider audience doesn’t touch the point.
Even if you doubt His divinity, you cannot deny that His wisdom has shaken the world as has no other man in history.
I will agree that the Jesus myth has been a large influence on the world. Just because something is common does not make it either right or good.
So you acknowledge that the ancient interpretation about the earth was wrong. Why stop there? Do you truly believe the rocks in your yard are somewhere between 4-6000 years old? What about koalas? Dinosaurs? Downs syndrome? There are perfectly legitimate explanations for these things that fall outside the scope of the Bible. If you don’t like homosexuals just say so. But don’t rely on some archaic text to validate your position.
Just where does creationism come into this, Gregory?! And don’t start yapping to me about the fossil record and such. I’m a geologist, for Pete’s sake.
gregory,
I was hoping that’s where you were going with it, but I didn’t want to step on your toes. Good show.
tgt, it feels much better to receive your praise then be on opposing sides of an issue. thanks!
In other words, it’s easier to be politically correct and go with the flow rather than take a stand for truth. And you’re right. It IS easier. However, your “feel good” time is liable to come with a hefty bill in the end. Think it over.
SMP, now you’re just rambling incoherently. Don’t you know when to stop?
If by politically correct, you mean open-minded, compassionate and accepting of others than yes, guilty as charged. I think the truth has been adequately revealed in this thread…
And, finally, if you’re so worried about some supposed judgement day, shouldn’t you be more concerned about yourself and how you live opposed to projecting on others? It’s liable to be distracting.
If it’s incoherent to you, it may just be because your own little universe is incoherent, Gregory. Ever think of that? Jesus didn’t come to Earth with the single message of “compassion”. There’s a lot more to it. I’d advise some personal study on the matter.
You know, invisible pink unicorns don’t fart rainbows to make us happy. There involved in a complicated interdimensional struggle.
Wait, did that sound ridiculous?
Yes, it did sound ridiculous. That’s because it was a statement of hippie mentality, not Christianity.
My comment makes as much fun of hippie spirituality as it does of Christianity. If my comment is ridiculous than so is yours. Maybe you need to the study the unicorns more so you understand.
Along with leprechauns and winged piggies. Thanks. I’ll pass.
And 83 comments later, allow me to jump in with this:
Steven, people like you give Christians a bad name.
Jesus didn’t come to Earth with the single message of “compassion”. There’s a lot more to it.
So you believe that Jesus demands a lot more than compassion, and on the basis of your comments on this thread, part of what is required of a good Christian is casting blame, callousness, and hatred at homosexuals and other people unlike oneself. So your view is that Jesus taught that people should be compassionate except when it’s convenient to not be compassionate in service of other ideologies. That’s a Gospel that Steven Mark Pilling can really get behind! Boy, tgt sure was right when he said that Jesus’ views predate him by ages.
I was always under the impression that the main point of the Christian Gospel was that Jesus absolved the sins of mankind in exchange for faith in Him. That belief does explain why Christians like you think you can commit sins of hatred and intolerance and expect to be forgiven by a loving God. It really, really doesn’t explain, however, why Christians like you think that kind of free pass applies to you only, and not to other people whose intrinsic characters are arbitrarily deemed to be damning and unforgivable.
I’d suggest, Edward, that those who “give Christianity a bad name” are those who fail to stand up for it and the wisdom it represents. I do stand up for Jesus and I’m not ashamed of it.
Did you even try to respond to my point, Steven? You change the subject so frequently that it must be the case either that you think it strengthens your position or that you have no reading comprehension. I have to draw the exact same conclusion that tgt and Gregory have. You have all the appearances of an internet troll. If that’s not what you are, you’re an outstanding case study for the capacity of strong ideology to override intellect.
SMP, you missed my point about Jesus. I don’t consider Conkling “untrustworthy” just because he is believes emphatically in the purported magic Jew. That’s his defense–he doesn’t know any better.
Or is it your’s, Gregory?
Now. I’m still trying to figure out what relevance (if any) all that verbal muck above from TGT was all about. Guideposts? Dinosaurs?? Some people like to go off on tangents everytime they can’t handle an argument, being emotionally unable to even agree to disagree, much less honestly concede a point. In the end, they end up jabbering like monkeys with every trite phrase out the handbook and patting themselves on the back for their own perspicacity! It’s also shallow and intellectualy dishonest. And very, very leftist.
You’re intelligent. You should know what “moving the goalposts” means, and it sure looks like you’re trolling, but I’ll bite anyway. Moving the goalposts is a common logical term. It means when someone sets a challenge, and that challenge is met, they change the rules for meeting the challenge.
You said that Jesus was the source of information. When I pointed out that was false, you claimed that Jesus just brought the information together and spread it. You set a point and when I hammered through it, you tried to pull a fast one and change your point. That’s moving the goalposts.
You are confusing gregory and I. It was gregory that pointed out your inconsistency in not believing the 4 corners of the earth are real (despite the biblical mentions), but still relying on the bible as a guide.
The rest of your post is not representative of reality. Pointing out the inconsistencies in your argument is not a tangent and there was no random jabbering. Not only are you inappropriately attributing specific motive to the comments of gregory and me, you’re lying about what our comments are. What did either of us say “out of a handbook”? What points have you won that either of us need to concede? Since when is it appropriate to agree to disagree about facts?
I said it above and I’ll say it again: you sound like a troll. When you talk about actual history, you clearly are very intelligent. I can only assume that your other responses are intentionally dense. I’m done feeding you again.
What YOU’RE doing, TGT, is accusing me of the same things that you’ve been doing all along- in true leftist fashion. I’m aware of what the terms mean, of course, as I’m not “dense”. Then you attempt to redefine what I’ve said, which is another leftist ploy. I did NOT say that Jesus’s ministry was devoid of anything new. That was your statement. I merely pointed out that, by the Savior’s own witness, that He came to “fulfill”. That does not mean that He blindly repeated the words of preceding philosophers.and prophets. Unlike those others, Jesus spoke to all of Mankind with a universal message of hope and salvation. Committed anti-Christians have ever since sought by any and all means to degrade, defame and localize the Gospels. Lotsa luck, TGT. You’ll fail just as the Soviets did. The Russians themselves have a proverb that speaks of it. “One word of truth can move can move the world”.
For SMP’s comment, see above. I laid down the challenge to name a single piece of Jesus’ wisdom that doesn’t predate Jesus’ time period. Instead of doing that, SMP started talking about Jesus bringing the wisdom together and spreading it out. When I called SMP out on this change, he has jumped back to claim Jesus added wisdom to the world, and my original response still stands unanswered.
That’s “supersticious”, TGT. Ever stop to think that that bogeyman might be on your side of the court?
Hmmm. My reply wound up way out of context!
I argue against boogeymen, so I doubt it. Also, did I mistype that and Jack fix it, or are you pretending I misspelled something. In any case, it doesn’t matter, though the irony is strong.
The irony IS strong, TGT. Just not as you think. And I didn’t intend to make a point of your occasional spelling slip. We all do that.
Kudos to your patience, tgt, hang in there.
I do my best. I think my patience has been losing out to my incredulity.
Your incredulity is noted!
Easy one for me. The Kansas homophobe is the most untrustworthy. In fact, he scares me. He wrote that his depravity was just as great as anyone else’s. Really? Equal to Jack the Ripper? Equal to Jeffrey Dahmer? Equal to Jerry Sandusky? Furthermore, he feels that lying to me would be just as bad as murdering me. I tend to get on people’s nerves quite quickly. I will definitely stay away from this guy. God only knows what he would do to me.
Easy — For LEAST trustworthy, the winner is C, Rachel Farrell. While the other 2 are dangerous, they are at least blatant in their stupidity (both A and B) and intolerant attitudes (only A). C, on the other hand, presumably did her predatory acts under the cloak of secrecy. We can TRUST that A and B will be stupid and intolerant, but until she was revealed as a predatory, C deceived everyone and now can’t be trusted.
The Pennsylvania Predator is clearly least trustworthy, having betrayed her husband and the parents who entrusted their children to her care.
The Kansas Homophobe is actually spouting some fairly mainstream Christian doctrine. Homosexuality is certainly a sin in many Christian sects, but often it’s not some kind of special sin. It’s just like all the other sins. The point is not that homosexuality and “murder, lying, stealing, or cheating” are literally equally bad, but that we are all sinners and we all fall short of God’s demand for moral perfection, yet he is willing to forgive us. Hate the sin but love the sinner, etc.
And in any case, no matter how stupid and wrong we may think this guy is, all he did was post stuff to his Facebook page. The Texas Bully acted on her stupidity. She may well be honest, but you can’t trust her judgement.
I agree with the ranking, but you’re too easy on the homophobe. Announcing to some of your students that they are the equivalent of murderers disqualifies him to teach, like Natalie Munroe, like the creep who mocked his special ed kids on HIS Facebook page. This post showed poor judgment and bigotry—and religion-based bigotry is bigotry still.
Would you have been satisfied if he merely compared them to idolaters and blasphemers?
We need to start a social-upheaval movement for homophobes’ rights.
And just what IS a homophobe? That term seems to be batted around very free and loose here. I, for example, consider homosexuality and perversion in general to be an unnatural lifestyle, born of mental illness, that brings unhappiness and early death to its adherents. I oppose in particular the efforts of organized deviancy to push their agenda on the rest of humanity; to include special “minority” privileges, the degradation of marriage and the family, and the recruitment of innocent children into their ranks through infiltration of schools and youth groups, along with homosexual adoption. Homosexuals are also the carriers of some of the most terrible diseases known to man, vectored through their filthy practices and habitual promiscuity. Their practices are referred to in the Bible and the Torah as an “abomination”, sources I acknowledge. NOW… if that makes me a “homophobe”, so be it. All Conkling did was mention on his Facebook page that he considers it wrong. Neither of us, as I recall, called for their mass extermination.
I, for example, consider homosexuality and perversion in general to be an unnatural lifestyle, born of mental illness, that brings unhappiness and early death to its adherents.
And your beliefs on this matter aren’t based on actual evidence, so we can safely discount them.
All Conkling did was mention on his Facebook page that he considers it wrong. Neither of us, as I recall, called for their mass extermination.
So it’s cool if I say “Redheaded children are just as bad as murderers” or “Anyone with freckles on their stomach has been judged by God as a sinner” completely seriously? That wouldn’t impede my ability to teach anyone, would it?
My “beliefs” are based on reality, TGT. Not the politically correct musings of those who have a vested interest in currying electorial favor with a movement of the insane. Your example of “red headed children” (!) is a case in point. You seek the common excuse of trying to compare genetic characteristics to your hackneyed (at best) theory of genetic predisposition of perversion… which is so devoid of reality as to be nonsensical on the face of it.
You don’t seem to understand what the term reality means. Your beliefs are based on the bible and Christianity. Those are not reality.
You say homosexuality is a “mental illness ” but the scientific and medical community does not believe that so please quote your scientific and medical sources that back that statement up. You also call homosexuality “umatural” but it is seen in over 1000 different species.
And if by dieseases you mean “aids” then i guess you are unaware that in africa the rate of aids is highest in hetrosexual men not homosexual men.
First of all, Bill, the “medical community” isn’t as pure as the driven snow, ethically speaking. Regrettably few groups are these days who depend on funding from the government or biased special interests. I’d also point out that your analogy to alleged animal homosexuality is not a good correlation to human behavior for a number of reasons. Chief among them is the human ability to make rational judgements and actions. Of course, that ability is often set in abeyance, too, as the arguments for and by homosexuals proves. As for AIDS (among many) the chief vectors of this disease remain promiscuous, perverted sex acts and intravenous drug users. From them, the disease has been spread to innocent people. If AIDS had been treated as a medical issue (instead of a deviant dominated political one) these vectors would have been quarantined. That would have saved much misery all around.
SMP, why can’t you ever just provide any evidence to support your position (aside that it doesn’t exist)? This whole thread from you is strawman after strawman.
If you’re going to throw the baby out with the bathwater (medical community) due to a lack of purity then should we respond in kind due to your acknowledgement that Jeremiah Wright is a bad apple among Christians and discount everything that the religion stands for. Additionally, if government funding taints a field/organization than this doesn’t bode well for the non-profit tax exempt status of the church.
Animal homosexuality isn’t a good correlation because humans can make rational judgments? That’s stupid. By your logic this would mean that a human baby could consciously decide against nursing from his mother even though all mammals do so by definition.
As for AIDS and how properly to deal with the epidemic, your words suggest that you would support something as ineffective as witch burning. Perhaps its time to realize that your narrow minded interpretation of Christianity isn’t going to solve the world’s problems.
Gregory: You’ve just been doing backflips in left field like crazy. Your attempts to spin my words with those ridiculous precepts are just plain embarrassing.
You’re a troll. I’m done with you. Anyone can read the thread and recognize your inability to stay on topic.
Once again, you accuse me of your own shortcomings. How Clinton of you!
SMP, in answer to your initial question of what is a homophobe, might I suggest you look in the mirror? That would be my definition anyway.
I assumed it would be, Danielle.
So much more civil once we all know each other 😉
The San Antonio teacher is, in my opinion, most despicable because she’s damaged the youngest and most vulnerable. And a whole lot of them! Every kid involved in that had to act against his/her natural, age-appropriate instincts when commanded to hit the classmate. That teaches children that it’s okay to ignore instincts, which, in turn, confuses so many other internal processes along the way.
There is no hell hot enough for that bitch.
I agree with Writer. The San Antonio teacher is the kind who will tolerate violence as long as SHE thinks it is justified. That is too reminiscent of what I have observed in my lifetime as genocides and oppressive regimes have quashed dissent and irrationally vied for power, resources etc. When enough people like the SA teacher tolerate that kind of bullying-en-masse, presto! there it is for the world to see. I don’t see evidence of that kind of warped thinking in the Kansas homophobe, just a conviction that “sin is sin.” I would not trust the SA teacher to lead courses remotely on line. At the risk of sounding Clintonian, the “PA predator” is merely out-of-control in practicing humanity’s oldest recreation – nothing more or less. I would trust her to dress scantily and dance on a pole in front of me.
Are you sure she hasn’t?!
[chuckling, a day late] I’m only sure she hasn’t in front of ME.
She’s probably still taking lessons from Miley Cyrus, come to think of it.
Hmmm…It’s a good dichotomy because you have such qualitatively different crimes.
1. blanket condemnation of a large group of oppressed people
2. A knee jerk reaction to bullying which involves inciting a small group of children to violence
3. A crime of the heart or genitals..or vanity that possibly hurt ? confused? a few teenagers
On its face, I say the bed bug teacher.
“Trust” alone is different than saying “most damaging” or “cruel.” Aside from completely ignoring the non aggression pact with Stalin, Hitler might have been somewhat trustworthy. …OK bad example. Certainly there are people out there who lived by their convictions but could be seen as cruel. Yet they may have been trustworthy.
The first guy could say he is worthy of trust and simply voiced an opinion that didn’t jive with current conventions. I would say he takes the prize if “trust” infers a world view that is humane, inclusive and not based on blind doctrine. The kindergarten teacher gets the prize if it entails someone who should not trust their OWN judgement but who, seemingly, did not commit this lapse of judgement in order to satisfy some base instinct. Hers is the only case that actually resulted in physical violence although the fact that they are little kids probably meant the physical harm was overstated. Like #1, for her, the stakes were low and she still managed to get into major hot water. Presuming that the sexy teacher’s trysts were crimes of passion, I say the stakes were higher. She might be considered the most trustworthy since she could point to the other 2 and say “at least I didn’t advocate cruelty, oppression or violence. My crime was one of passion.” But I suspect what she did will have the most lasting impact on the “victims.” She is the one who, I presume, has the greatest chance of “penal consequences.” ooops… I had a few beers.
Most to Least trustworthy:
The Kansas homophobe. You may disagree with his values, but at the risk of presenting an argument based upon appeal to tradition (or popularity, take your pick) it’s worth noting that this precept IS common among evangelical Christians. Further, while his judgment may be somewhat suspect for posting this on Facebook rather than testifying in church, he did NOT present his views in the classroom.
The other two engaged in criminal activity. Conkling isn’t even in the same league.
Personally, I would have to rank the “Pennsylvania Predator” in the middle. While here crimes were certainly the most serious, anyone who amasses a track record like hers doesn’t just have a screw loose – she’s got whole subassemblies missing. While this gal should do time and never be allowed to teach again (or trusted), I’m of the opinion that we’re dealing with some fairly serious mental illness that impairs judgment.
Which brings us to the Texas Bully, who encouraged kids to engage in battery. THAT one gets my vote for the least ethical – and probably the most dangerous.
damn – wish we had an edit function here. Header should be MOST TO LEAST trustworthy, not least to most.
I’m your edit function—you can always e-mail me to fix posts. I do wish WordPress would add one, though.
Trust which of the three? None of the above.
Mr. Pilling lost me entirely the moment he called it “perversion”. I have only a few gay friends (so far as I know). None of them, male or female, is a “pervert”.
I think haters are REAL perverts.
I only call it what it is. Sexual perversion. If telling the truth makes me a “hater”, I guess I’ll just have to live with it! From what I’ve seen, the real and abiding hate comes from organized deviants. By their deeds ye shall know them. I’m not in the habit of quailing from the political epithets of the Left.
You’re calling it what you want it to be. You’re using your faith as fact when it’s really just rationalization.
Anyone care to argue that faith is a good thing now?
Also, what hate has come from the “organized deviants” (by which I assume you mean homosexuals)?
The very fact that they equate opposing perversion with hate.
If so, that means almost all Americans in American history hated them, which is absurd.
Strawman. Nobody is equating opposing perversion with hate. Calling X perversion when X is normal and natural sounds like hate to me. It’s note hate to call it such. Next are you going to say that athiests are oppressing Christians when the athiests insist on not being oppressed?
Just re-read what you posted, TGT. “Convoluted logic” is a kind term to describle it!
Is this suppose to apply to the message you replied to? If so, it’s incoherent.
Mr. Pilling said: “I only call it what it IS.” (my emphasis). This made me go to Google, Merriam-Webster, etc., to look up “perversion” and “pervert”, several definitions and discussions. My conclusion: use of the word is totally subjective, not a cut-and-dried, objective, universally-accepted meaning. Ergo, Mr. Pilling does not call it what it IS, but what HE himself WANTS it to be. Unless he has appointed himself the final judge and arbiter of what it IS. Which would not surprise me at all.
God’s the final arbiter; SMP just magically knows what God wants.
I refer to the Bible and just plain common sense on these matters. Since you gentlemen consider both to be infactual, you naturally label it “magical”! I’d reply that your own assertations sail the Mystic Seas of unreality.
This speaks for itself. To SMP, requiring evidence for belief is sailing the randomly capitalized “Mystic Seas of unreality”.
TGT, I’m sure you’ve heard the aphorism: “Christianity has a few great teachings and a million bad teachers”. Hmmm — sound like anybody we know?
Yup, but I prefer this: “Christianity is a mismash of great, good, neutral, bad, and horrible teachings. The preachers run the same gamut.”
Then I’ll leave you two to your own prayer quorum!
Try Jeremiah Wright.
Trust Most to Least (and why):
Most: Jack Konkling, whose odious attitudes are covered by free speech. What he did is bad form, but not illegal.
Middle: the Salinas Elementary school teacher. Not sure what the charges would be, but 30-counts of incitement to misdemeanor assault with extenuating circumstances (bully = provocation?) or whatever the DA decides to charge her with is pretty bad.
Worst: Rachel Farrel, for myriad counts statutory RAPE (felony?) with at least 3 boys, plus adultery. Total abuse of power (as the middle case), plus a sex offender, plus multiple occasions (not heat of the moment), plus violations of her marriage vows (civil liability? criminal liability?)
She’s an idiot and a predator. But she wears dresses so she’ll likely get off lightly, as will the middle case. Watch Jack get fired.
It’s completely protected to say “I think killing small children would be fun”, that doesn’t mean that someone who said such should be trusted. Free speech isn’t about ethics.
“She’s an idiot and a predator. But she wears dresses so she’ll likely get off lightly, as will the middle case. Watch Jack get fired.”
I love it! You out-Eeyore’d me on this! MUST sacrifice to appease the homophobiphobes!