Pregnant Schoolgirl Maddi Runkles Banned From Graduation Because She’s ‘Immoral’

A pregnant schoolgirl has been told she will not be allowed to take part in her high school graduation because “she was immoral”.

Maryland teen Maddi Runkles, a straight A student, said she has been “shamed” by Heritage Academy since she told the Christian school she was pregnant.

According to the school’s website, it requires students to sign a pledge agreeing to protect their bodies by “abstaining from sexual immorality and from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/pregnant-schoolgirl-maddi-runkles-graduation-immoral_uk_592827d5e4b0df34c35b6f61?utm_hp_ref=uk



And this school is teaching children?

You Yanks need to get to grips with all this crap where religious loons are allowed to run schools.

Thorin wrote:A pregnant schoolgirl has been told she will not be allowed to take part in her high school graduation because “she was immoral”.

Maryland teen Maddi Runkles, a straight A student, said she has been “shamed” by Heritage Academy since she told the Christian school she was pregnant.

According to the school’s website, it requires students to sign a pledge agreeing to protect their bodies by “abstaining from sexual immorality and from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/pregnant-schoolgirl-maddi-runkles-graduation-immoral_uk_592827d5e4b0df34c35b6f61?utm_hp_ref=uk

And this school is teaching children?

You Yanks need to get to grips with all this crap where religious loons are allowed to run schools.

America is a Christian-only country! Ask Texas. Pregnancy is not allowed.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:A pregnant schoolgirl has been told she will not be allowed to take part in her high school graduation because “she was immoral”.

Maryland teen Maddi Runkles, a straight A student, said she has been “shamed” by Heritage Academy since she told the Christian school she was pregnant.

According to the school’s website, it requires students to sign a pledge agreeing to protect their bodies by “abstaining from sexual immorality and from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/pregnant-schoolgirl-maddi-runkles-graduation-immoral_uk_592827d5e4b0df34c35b6f61?utm_hp_ref=uk

And this school is teaching children?

You Yanks need to get to grips with all this crap where religious loons are allowed to run schools.

America is a Christian-only country!  Ask Texas.  Pregnancy is not allowed.

You split my sides with laughter Quill, stop doing this to me.     


Pregnancy before marriage is not ideal, but it's hardly ''immoral''.
The things that I personally consider wrong are 1) promiscuity and 2) infidelity.
Getting pregnant is fine, it's not immoral, provided the woman is with one man only, and he stand by her.

Sarah Palin stood for conservative christian values. She was the tea party's poster girl.


Her whole family was rotten to the core and her teenage daughter Bristol was actually accepting a mahoosive fee  for making  sexual abstinence speeches to teenagers - whilst shagging the sh*t out of her own boyfriend, and bedhopping too. (pardon my french!)


Bristol was the teenage girl that kept on giving ... and giving,   very 'generous' she was.  
Too funny!!  

My reference is to the Texas Senate passing an adoption/foster care law that establishes Christianity as America's only religion.

Original Quill wrote:My reference is to the Texas Senate passing an adoption/foster care law that establishes Christianity as America's only religion.

So the Jews, Buddists, Hindus etc had better get in the closet PDQ, then.
It's your turn of phrase. Creases me up, Quill !

Jules wrote:Bristol was the teenage girl that kept on giving ... and giving, very 'generous' she was.
Too funny!!

Yes. I would love to see one of her children adopted by a couple of gays.

She'll spontanoeusly combust.

Original Quill wrote:

Jules wrote:Bristol was the teenage girl that kept on giving ... and giving,   very 'generous' she was.  
Too funny!!  

Yes.  I would love to see one of her children adopted by a couple of gays.  

I am not sure how I grasp your meaning.

That because someone is a prejudice dick, you want to then discriminate against them and take away one of their children based on nothing more than hate?

I am sure any gay parents would be the best parents for them and I am disgusted when they are denied by religious idiots, but I would never wish for children to be taken from someone to spite them, as you did Quill.

Jules wrote:She'll spontanoeusly combust.

Continue to spread the love

How are you any better by the above Jules?

Learn to recognise forum banter when you see it Thorin.
I like Quill and I enjoy having a laff with him.
Have a lovely bank holiday, Thorin, Cheerio.

My point to both Quill and Jules, both who I respect is this.

I fail to see how you champion civil rights by being anything but defending civil rights by being hateful. Towards those we want to change by reason. You are never going to change them by hate. Its hate as to why they are hateful, which then makes you think you can be the same and in the end, you end up being exactly the same, with hate.

So what have you both achieved?

Nothing

You just continue the cycle of hate

I dont want to see an ISIS view of hate in the west

Then we truly have lost

Jules wrote:Learn to recognise forum banter when you see it Thorin.
I like Quill and I enjoy having a laff with him.
Have a lovely bank holiday, Thorin, Cheerio.

Some banter crosses lines Jules

Have a good bank holiday also Jules


x

Thorin wrote:

Jules wrote:Learn to recognise forum banter when you see it Thorin.
I like Quill and I enjoy having a laff with him.
Have a lovely bank holiday, Thorin, Cheerio.

Some banter crosses lines Jules

Have a good bank holiday also Jules


x

As I have Said to Raggs it is NOT your job to make that call
I am far more worried by You treating this forum like your personal Missionary Crusade for all things thorin believes

Please Accept you are JUST a poster and do not have the final word on topics or what crosses the line

And it always depends who makes the banter of course, because if anyone else had said all that then we'd have had the smelly old lady brigade slagging us off.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Some banter crosses lines Jules

Have a good bank holiday also Jules


x

As I have Said to Raggs it is NOT your job to make that call
I am far more worried by You treating this forum like your personal Missionary Crusade for all things thorin believes

Please Accept you are JUST a poster and do not have the final word on topics or what crosses the line

I dont care what you think and I am not breaking any rule

I can speak out on anything I like

So get stuffed

Re:  the O/P :

This sort of problem could happen in any private faith-based or politically-focussed school where they have their students signing some kind of pathetic "pledge"...

Irrespective of whatever country they're in.  No reason it couldn't happen in Britain, if a privately-run school has their students signing such a contract at the beginning of the year, so as to circumvent any equality/inclusion/anti-discrimination laws..

Surely it's a case of "buyer beware" when parents choose to inflict an undemocratic, non-inclusive, faith-based school system on their offspring ???

Jules wrote:Learn to recognise forum banter when you see it Thorin.
I like Quill and I enjoy having a laff with him.
Have a lovely bank holiday, Thorin, Cheerio.

Thank you, Jules. The feeling is always mutual.

Let me say to others, that there is more than a little bit of cynicism in our humour. I shouldn't have to say it, but the joke is in amplifying something that is ridiculous to begin with. The Texas legislature has recently held, sub silentio, that the only religion in America is Christianity. It outlaws not only other religions, but LBGT lifestyles as well. It is a position that well deserves ridiculing.

"Reductio ad absurdum is the technique of reducing an argument or hypothesis to absurdity, by pushing the argument's premises or conclusions to their logical limits and showing how ridiculous the consequences would be, thus disproving or discrediting the argument." http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum It is a common, if cynical form of expressing opposition.

veya_victaous wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Some banter crosses lines Jules

Have a good bank holiday also Jules


x

As I have Said to Raggs it is NOT your job to make that call
I am far more worried by You treating this forum like your personal Missionary Crusade for all things thorin believes

Please Accept you are JUST a poster and do not have the final word on topics or what crosses the line

Don't drag me into it.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes.  I would love to see one of her children adopted by a couple of gays.  

I am not sure how I grasp your meaning.

That because someone is a prejudice dick, you want to then discriminate against them and take away one of their children based on nothing more than hate?

I am sure any gay parents would be the best parents for them and I am disgusted when they are denied by religious idiots, but I would never wish for children to be taken from someone to spite them, as you did Quill.

I have said elsewhere, that didge constantly seizes on words, to the loss of meaning and ideas.  Here is a good example: He takes an obvious reductio ad absurdum expression literally, and launches into a tirade based upon his own lack of understanding.  Why do we have to endure this simply because he doesn't think or ferret out the real meaning?  It's a waste of time and energy to have to wait for him to catch up.

If didge disciplined himself to think, he would step over these mistakes and the deliberation could continue uninterrupted.  But instead, he not only stops the progress of the discussion, but cements the interruption by turning it into a shitfest.

It is such tactics, and not his views, that is the problem.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I am not sure how I grasp your meaning.

That because someone is a prejudice dick, you want to then discriminate against them and take away one of their children based on nothing more than hate?

I am sure any gay parents would be the best parents for them and I am disgusted when they are denied by religious idiots, but I would never wish for children to be taken from someone to spite them, as you did Quill.

I have said elsewhere, that didge constantly seizes on words, to the loss of meaning and ideas.  Here is a good example: He takes an obvious reductio ad absurdum expression literally, and launches into a tirade based upon his own lack of understanding.  Why do we have to endure this simply because he doesn't think or ferret out the real meaning.  It's a waste of time and energy to have to wait for him to catch up.

If didge disciplined himself to think, he would step over these mistakes and the deliberation could continue uninterrupted.  But instead, he not only stops the progress of the discussion, but cements the interruption by turning it into a shitfest.

It is such tactics, and not his views, that is the problem.

It's not really fair to bitch about him when he's banned is it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have said elsewhere, that didge constantly seizes on words, to the loss of meaning and ideas.  Here is a good example: He takes an obvious reductio ad absurdum expression literally, and launches into a tirade based upon his own lack of understanding.  Why do we have to endure this simply because he doesn't think or ferret out the real meaning.  It's a waste of time and energy to have to wait for him to catch up.

If didge disciplined himself to think, he would step over these mistakes and the deliberation could continue uninterrupted.  But instead, he not only stops the progress of the discussion, but cements the interruption by turning it into a shitfest.

It is such tactics, and not his views, that is the problem.

It's not really fair to bitch about him when he's banned is it?

I thought about that, and ordinarily I would agree.  But, one, I expect he will be back, and I would welcome him.  And, two, this subject goes beyond merely didge's presence (or lack of it).  Three, the example is simply too good to pass by...it's no different than if I just reached back and picked it out as an example, in the context of another thread, save that this one is still fresh. 

These kinds of arguments--and admittedly, didge presents the worst of it--can reoccur at any time.  It is instructive to us to see that this is what we get, when we place obvious, plain argumentativeness above clear meaning and tolerant discussion.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:A pregnant schoolgirl has been told she will not be allowed to take part in her high school graduation because “she was immoral”.

Maryland teen Maddi Runkles, a straight A student, said she has been “shamed” by Heritage Academy since she told the Christian school she was pregnant.

According to the school’s website, it requires students to sign a pledge agreeing to protect their bodies by “abstaining from sexual immorality and from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal drugs”.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/pregnant-schoolgirl-maddi-runkles-graduation-immoral_uk_592827d5e4b0df34c35b6f61?utm_hp_ref=uk

And this school is teaching children?

You Yanks need to get to grips with all this crap where religious loons are allowed to run schools.

America is a Christian-only country!  Ask Texas.  Pregnancy is not allowed.

My mum got the sack from Dolcis on Oxford Road in London because she was pregnant with me. And she was married!

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I am not sure how I grasp your meaning.

That because someone is a prejudice dick, you want to then discriminate against them and take away one of their children based on nothing more than hate?

I am sure any gay parents would be the best parents for them and I am disgusted when they are denied by religious idiots, but I would never wish for children to be taken from someone to spite them, as you did Quill.

I have said elsewhere, that didge constantly seizes on words, to the loss of meaning and ideas.  Here is a good example: He takes an obvious reductio ad absurdum expression literally, and launches into a tirade based upon his own lack of understanding.  Why do we have to endure this simply because he doesn't think or ferret out the real meaning?  It's a waste of time and energy to have to wait for him to catch up.

If didge disciplined himself to think, he would step over these mistakes and the deliberation could continue uninterrupted.  But instead, he not only stops the progress of the discussion, but cements the interruption by turning it into a shitfest.

It is such tactics, and not his views, that is the problem.

He told me his opinion of me in another thread and I did not mind him saying it, so I don't think he will mind me saying my opinion of him.

He has a good heart on the whole but he's just too overly serious and overly emotional nearly all the time. He needs to lighten up a bit.

eddie wrote:And it always depends who makes the banter of course, because if anyone else had said all that then




we'd have had the smelly old lady brigade slagging us off.  

Hey just tell the smelly old lady brigade to spin on it.
Tell the smelly YOUNG lady brigade to spin on it too.


I stand 100% by everything I said in this thread. LMAO !

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I have said elsewhere, that didge constantly seizes on words, to the loss of meaning and ideas.  Here is a good example: He takes an obvious reductio ad absurdum expression literally, and launches into a tirade based upon his own lack of understanding.  Why do we have to endure this simply because he doesn't think or ferret out the real meaning.  It's a waste of time and energy to have to wait for him to catch up.

If didge disciplined himself to think, he would step over these mistakes and the deliberation could continue uninterrupted.  But instead, he not only stops the progress of the discussion, but cements the interruption by turning it into a shitfest.

It is such tactics, and not his views, that is the problem.

It's not really fair to bitch about him when he's banned is it?

I thought about that, and ordinarily I would agree.  But, one, I expect he will be back, and I would welcome him.  And, two, this subject goes beyond merely didge's presence (or lack of it).  Three, the example is simply too good to pass by...it's no different than if I just reached back and picked it out as an example, in the context of another thread, save that this one is still fresh. 

These kinds of arguments--and admittedly, didge presents the worst of it--can reoccur at any time.  It is instructive to us to see that this is what we get, when we place obvious, plain argumentativeness above clear meaning and tolerant discussion.

exactly quill.

Of course he will be back it is a 2 day ban so he can stop spamming ALL the threads
the forum needs break from his zealot missionary like posting style
and he never seem to take the hint to just shut up, he doesn't need to have the last word in every thread and we are not here to get a sermon from him.

he needed a reminder he is just a normal poster with no right to adjudicate on every topic and drive it the whole forum to his agenda

The OP...its like something out of the dark ages.
I hardly think punishing someone who gets pregnant (and what about the boy who got her pregnant?) is going to help her.

Maybe if she had kept quiet and had an abortion that would have suited some better.

Syl wrote:The OP...its like something out of the dark ages.
I hardly think punishing someone who gets pregnant (and what about the boy who got her pregnant?) is going to help her.

Maybe if she had kept quiet and had an abortion that would have suited some better.

Of course, you are right. There are inequities all around this story. But leave it to southern, religious zealots to create this situation.

Here is Texas, trying to end abortion, and condemning the victims of their own stupidity.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The OP...its like something out of the dark ages.
I hardly think punishing someone who gets pregnant (and what about the boy who got her pregnant?) is going to help her.

Maybe if she had kept quiet and had an abortion that would have suited some better.

Of course, you are right.  There are inequities all around this story.  But leave it to southern, religious zealots to create this situation.

Here is Texas, trying to end abortion, and condemning the victims of their own stupidity.

Double standards...the Catholic church condemns abortion and on the other hand condemns contraception also.
The problem with all zealots is their ways just don't work.....which is probably why there are so many hypocrites around.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course, you are right.  There are inequities all around this story.  But leave it to southern, religious zealots to create this situation.

Here is Texas, trying to end abortion, and condemning the victims of their own stupidity.

Double standards...the Catholic church condemns abortion and on the other hand condemns contraception also.
The problem with all zealots is their ways just don't work.....which is probably why there are so many hypocrites around.

Particularly in the south.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Double standards...the Catholic church condemns abortion and on the other hand condemns contraception also.
The problem with all zealots is their ways just don't work.....which is probably why there are so many hypocrites around.

Particularly in the south.

Seems every country has its little pockets (or big ones in the US) of people who are out of step with reality.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Particularly in the south.

Seems every country has its little pockets (or big ones in the US) of people who are out of step with reality.

People--Europeans, at least--used to say that America is hyper-conservative.  That was true in one way; America never went through a socialist/workers period that Europe did.  

But the bulk of zeitgeist leading to the impression that America was backwards, was the American south.  Those are the people that, beginning with the Civil War and slavery, spawned the gun culture, the anti-government culture (states rights); perpetuated (seemingly forever) the American brand of racism, and ultimately, brought us Donald Trump.

America on the coasts, and in the urban mercantile centers, is every bit as educated and progressive thinking as Europe.  The drag is in the belt of the nation, beginning in Savannah/Jacksonville, and moving in a swath northwest to Mormon country (Idaho and Utah).  People in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, have no problem understanding and promoting progressive ideas.

America has to outgrow it's south...or otherwise cast them loose.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Seems every country has its little pockets (or big ones in the US) of people who are out of step with reality.

People--Europeans, at least--used to say that America is hyper-conservative.  That was true in one way; America never went through a socialist/workers period that Europe did.  

But the bulk of zeitgeist leading to the impression that America was backwards, was the American south.  Those are the people that, beginning with the Civil War and slavery, spawned the gun culture, the anti-government culture (states rights); perpetuated (seemingly forever) the American brand of racism, and ultimately, brought us Donald Trump.

America on the coasts, and in the urban mercantile centers, is every bit as educated and progressive thinking as Europe.  The drag is in the belt of the nation, beginning in Savannah/Jacksonville, and moving in a swath northwest to Mormon country (Idaho and Utah).  People in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, have no problem understanding and promoting progressive ideas.

America has to outgrow it's south...or otherwise cast them loose.

Its not surprising that the states who voted for Trump have the lowest % of passport holders.
Maybe if they got out more they would have a more rounded view of the world.

http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

People--Europeans, at least--used to say that America is hyper-conservative.  That was true in one way; America never went through a socialist/workers period that Europe did.  

But the bulk of zeitgeist leading to the impression that America was backwards, was the American south.  Those are the people that, beginning with the Civil War and slavery, spawned the gun culture, the anti-government culture (states rights); perpetuated (seemingly forever) the American brand of racism, and ultimately, brought us Donald Trump.

America on the coasts, and in the urban mercantile centers, is every bit as educated and progressive thinking as Europe.  The drag is in the belt of the nation, beginning in Savannah/Jacksonville, and moving in a swath northwest to Mormon country (Idaho and Utah).  People in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle, New York, Philadelphia and Boston, have no problem understanding and promoting progressive ideas.

America has to outgrow it's south...or otherwise cast them loose.

Its not surprising that the states who voted for Trump have the lowest % of passport holders.
Maybe if they got out more they would have a more rounded view of the world.

http://www.theexpeditioner.com/2010/02/17/how-many-americans-have-a-passport-2/

Also the highest number of welfare recipients and lowest educated in the nation.  The demographics of these people are amazing, but clearly they are poorly educated and are being duped by their own political representatives, who are among the strongest voices opposing their interests.

Odd how people can be so isolated in the modern world.
I think the most powerful political persuasion is the press, if less educated and backward people read a particular paper designed with them in mind, the readers will be easily manipulated.

The papers here have such opposing views re political parties, the truth may lie somewhere in between....at least the truth as they want us to see it.

Syl wrote:Odd how people can be so isolated in the modern world.
I think the most powerful political persuasion is the press, if less educated and backward people read a particular paper designed with them in mind, the readers will be easily manipulated.

The papers here have such opposing views re political parties, the truth may lie somewhere in between....at least the truth as they want us to see it.

The press is both the good guy and the bad guy in these situations.  It is, after all, just a medium.
 
The key is to make the citizen smarter, but education is precisely what Republicans oppose.  As you might gather from the earlier posts, the Republican/conservatives like the citizen in a 'duped' condition.  A 'duped', uneducated citizen is easily manipulated. As I have said many times, Republicans and conservatives make their way by lying to the public.