Skip to comments.A Teacher Is Back in Class After Anti-Gay Diatribe, but Did He Really Win?
Posted on 09/01/2011 2:54:02 PM PDT by daniel1212
Jerry Buell is back in the classroom, as he should be. Or, perhaps, shouldn't be. Buell, 54, a devout Baptist, family man and veteran teacher of American history at public Mount Dora High School in central Florida, might as well be the faculty heavy in an episode of Glee: this summer, he set off a national First Amendment fracas by announcing on Facebook that gay marriage is a "cesspool" that makes him vomit and mocks God. Buell's employer, the Lake County School District, removed him from the classroom last week for the first three days of the new school year, pending an investigation of the Facebook comments, then reinstated him on Aug. 25 presumably because it realized his speech in this case was protected. But though he prevailed, his rant may backfire socially by helping to plant homophobia more firmly alongside racism and sexism on the nation's roster of hate speech...
A number of rules reportedly hang on the walls of Buell's Mount Dora classroom. Rule No. 1: respect. Another reads, "A cruel word cannot be unsaid." Buell has every legal right to be back at work but if he's as good a teacher as he seems, his students should be smart enough to wonder if he really belongs there.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others. This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character", as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way. In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, After the Ball, is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.
Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not" The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records, It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones. 
They can take their "roster of hate speech" and burn it in the same inferno where they destroyed the Constitution.
“Tolerance” means you can’t have an opinion
open minded: accept this junk science or feel good trash as fact.
critical thinking: attack the traditional family, Judea-Christian values, protestant work ethic, patriarchal society, American exceptionalism.
tolerance: permissiveness for all liberal social/economic causes and ideas. But ONLY liberal ideas.
diversity/multiculturalism: look at all cultures with relativistic and equivocal perspective regardless of what outcomes they bring.
It's bigoted not to let her have her own beliefs, is it not? Why the animosity against her for utilizing her right to speak freely?
The door swings both ways in America. Those who are condemning her are the epitome of hateful bigotry, and it has to stop.
Personally, I agree with her. Millions of Americans do. She's 100% right on this one.
So which is more cruel and respectful? To see someone marching off to depravity (and their life turned into wreckage), and their soul off to an eternity in hell - and to pat them on the back and say: 'I celebrate your life choices. Go continue as you are' ... Or, to tell them: 'Repent from this life of depravity (or 'cesspool' - if you like). Seek ye the LORD (who - though forgiving of us sinners - said, 'Go and sin no more') while He may be found. Don't chose death and damnation'!...
Better to have some genuine respect for someone's eternal soul and toi try to save them, while they can be saved, by presenting them with the Truth about their sordid behaviour -- then to show some faux 'respect' (trying to get the approval of the world - but not caring for the lost) - by encouraging them to sink into the pit of hell.
Just a friendly reminder: the first amendment only applies to Leftists.
The main Homeschool Ping List handles the homeschool-specific articles. I hold both the Homeschool Ping List and the Another Reason to Homeschool Ping list. Please freepmail me to let me know if you would like to be added to or removed from either list, or both.
Yeah, well public schools are cesspool as well.
the district won a moral victory despite the futility of its legal effort.
Just like Scripture says in the end days they shall call evil, good and good, evil. Imagine only a few decades back the fallout that would have happened if a schoolteacher advocated FOR homosexuality! The very hint that one was involved in any kind of sexual impropriety was usually grounds for discipline or dismissal. Now, should a teacher advocate FOR positive, moral and Biblically-based behavior, he or she is considered the outcast.
Good comments, Daniel1212, I like that you stand your ground even in the midst of name calling. Those who resort to personal attacks are merely showing they cannot argue for their point of view. This is typical liberal behavior.
Sorry for not responding, been busy elsewhere, but thanks for the encouragement. Stand by for an article on advocating Biblical, moral behavior.