Color us confused.
So
many are claiming religious exemptions these days. Now if you have a
religious objection to a vaccine? We understand that. We think it
should be respected. If, like August Aguayo, you are a religious person
in the US military and your religious beliefs grow and become stronger
and you cite them as a reason not to deploy to Iraq, we understand
that. We understand many reasons you might opt out of certain things.
We don't understand this:
Two
of Vivian Geraghty's students at Jackson Memorial Middle School in
Massillon, Ohio, were undergoing transition-related care and wanted
people, including their teachers, to use their proper pronouns.
But
Geraghty, a third-year English teacher, went to school administrators
in August to report a problem. Her Christian beliefs prohibited her from
using the transgender students’ pronouns or their new names, according
to a federal lawsuit filed Monday.
Again, we're confused. Crackpots tend to confuse us.
Vivian
Geraghty is stating that she can't use pronouns (that she doesn't agree
with) or names (that she doesn't agree with) due to her religion?
What's her next excuse? The dog ate her homework?
We ask because of Matthew 22: 15 - 22.
For those unfamiliar, it's a book, chapter and verse in THE BIBLE.
We'll assume Viv Geraghty is among those unfamiliar with it.
It's where Jesus talks about "render unto Caesar."
Remember that, Viv?
Seems to us this is a render unto Caeser moment if this is any kind of 'religious' moment at all.
The
government is telling her to use pronouns the students prefer, she's
being told to call them by their preferred names. And Viv's pissing her
panties and screaming like a mad woman. Where, in the Bible, is she
finding her religious belief?
More to the point, where is her common sense?
If DANCING WITH THE STARS' Mark Ballas were in her class, what would Viv call him?
Would
she call him "Mark"? Or would she insist upon calling him "Mark Jr."?
Because he is Mark Jr. He doesn't go by it, but that is his name. If
Will Smith were in Viv's class, what would she call Will? His name isn't
Will. It's Willard Carroll Smith Jr. Would she insist upon calling
him "Willard"? "Willard Jr."? If Robert Redford were in Viv's class,
what would she call him? "Robert Jr."? Or "Charles"? Charles is his
first name (full name Charles Robert Redford, Jr.). And if Beau Biden had been in her class, would she have refused to call him Beau? Joseph Robinette Biden III was Beau's legal name.
Our point here is that children are called preferred names every day in every US school and it's nothing new.
Has Viv stuck to their legal first names with her students? If not, why is this suddenly a problem?
It's
a problem, let's be honest, because Viv hates a certain group of people
and wants to be a test case for the law. Oh, Viv, you're so
embarrassing. We picture your God of choice, up in heaven, clucking his
head and determining that this sort of behavior is exactly the reason
he will banish you to hell. You're trying to justify hate in His name
but His son Jesus was very clear that you should ''Render unto Caeser
the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."
Jesus'
words are pretty clear, Viv. Do we need to send you a copy of THE
BIBLE? We feel like we need to start a list for Viv and all the others
-- like Lorie Smith -- who seem to think that Jesus' edict doesn't
exist. It's right there on the printed page, Viv. You do know how to
read, right?
Viv
insists that she detailed her religious objection (she didn't and still
hasn't, render unto Caeser nullifies any religious objection she might
have thought she had) and then was "forced to resign." At gunpoint,
Viv?
We can't wait for
Candice Cameron Bure to portray Viv in GREAT AMERICAN MEDIA's
made-for-TV movie THEY FORCED ME TO CALL HER ALEX AND HIM DREW!!! WHAT WAS I TO DO!!! THE STORY OF CRAZY VIV.
Viv also claims that she was ejected from the school "within two hours" of detailing her objection.
Which
was it, Viv, forced to resign or tossed out on your ass? As a
Christian, Viv, you are aware that you're not supposed to lie, right?
It's in The Ten Commandments: "Thou shall not bear false witness against
they neighbor."
Viv, do you struggle with comprehension issues?
Her
attorneys maintain that the school insisted "she would be required to
put her beliefs aside as a public servant." But her religion dictates
that: Render unto Caeser.
In
the legal paperwork, Viv's cracked in the head attorneys cite the
Constitution (wrongly) but we looked through the paperwork in vain to
find her religious argument.
That's
because there actually isn't one. There's nothing in THE BIBLE that
backs Viv up. She climbed out on a limb and, in a sane world, we'd all
hear it cracking at this point.
The
Constitution, Viv's attorneys insist, guarantees "a freedom to
differ." Not really. They're extrapolating. That's a fancy term for
lying and lawyers do it all the time when they can't actually build on
precedent.
They insist of the people Viv is suing:
Defendants
have abandoned this guiding light [Ava and C.I. note: "the right to differ" -- apparently a
new amendment to The Constitution] and adopted one particular view on
this subject, that a person's subjective identity determines whether a
person is male or female, not a person's sex. Compounding their
unlawful adoption of an orthodoxy in this area, they have created and
implemented a Policy requiring teachers, including Plantiff Vivian
Geraghty, to mount her own support of Defendant's views by forcing her,
as a condition of keeping her job as a public school teacher, to
participate in the "social transition" of children in her class.
Ms.
Geraghty has a different view of this fundamental matter, informed by
her scientific understanding and her Christian faith.
So
which is it? She citing religious reasons or "her scientific
understanding" -- because we're willing to be she's even weaker on
science than she is on religion.
And, to be really honest, Viv never knows the gender of her students. She knows what she's told. But she's not groping their crotches so she's really got no idea who is male, who is female, who is non-binary, etc.
She really needs to get a grip.
And the courts need to stop taking these claims of I disagree for "religious reasons" when there are no religious reasons to disagree. But there is Freedom of Religion which is why the nutjobs resort to lying about "religious reasons" -- it gives them something to pretend they're standing for and usually it intimidates courts.
From now on, the courts need to be demanding that those claiming "religious reasons" state what those reasons are and that those reasons are then examined to find out whether or not they really exist. If Jesus told you that the government decides what the government decides and you do in the church what you do in the church, there's no 'religious objection' for the Christian faith in Viv's case.