Export thread
Should private religious school be forced to enroll student...
#1
strawman
strawman
Should a private religious school be forced to enroll a student where the family is living in opposition to the school's teachings and beliefs?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/08/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2
This reminds me of all the people who said that private churches would never be forced to marry gay people, and yet here we are. If this goes through, sounds like supporters of proposition 8 will have a lot more firepower in their arsenal saying that if such marriages are recognized then the churches will have to support such relationships, even if they are not allowed in their teachings.
Given that this is a private religious school, is it within their rights to permit only those students where the student and their family subscribe to the teachings and beliefs of the church?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/08/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2
This reminds me of all the people who said that private churches would never be forced to marry gay people, and yet here we are. If this goes through, sounds like supporters of proposition 8 will have a lot more firepower in their arsenal saying that if such marriages are recognized then the churches will have to support such relationships, even if they are not allowed in their teachings.
Given that this is a private religious school, is it within their rights to permit only those students where the student and their family subscribe to the teachings and beliefs of the church?
#2
Cajungal
Cajungal
Ugh. You've gone and gotten me started.
They might as well shut out people who lie, cheat, have violent tendencies, drink or eat in excess, put money and things before their spirituality, feel jealous of their friends and loved ones constantly....
That's the big issue I have: Homosexual relations are a sin in the eyes of the church.. ok. And they choose to hold that particular sin over all the other ones that their devout followers commit every day. It's very visible, so gay people don't even have a chance to show that they're just as capable of good morals.
As for, do they have the right? Well... and it hurts me to say this, but... I guess they do. They live by a certain set of standards which I and many others find archaic, but that's their business. I think it's an incredibly stupid and callous thing to do. If I had any kind of control there, that decision wouldn't be mine. Even when I was Catholic, I believed that, for all the "common" sinners that are allowed through church and public school doors, we shouldn't have any problem with the people who commit slightly different kinds of sins. (To be clear, I don't think homosexual relations are a sin. I hope that's clear by now). That priest said during a sermon that the decision wasn't about "excluding sinners" but that's just what they're doing. They can't catch every liar, they can't catch every cheat or every glutton, but they CAN easily spot and exclude gay people, and that's the only difference. All of those things mentioned are sins in their eyes. I mean, shit, so many Catholics--MOST Catholics I've encountered--don't support the church's views on birth control, but are they going to go to the trouble of weeding out those bastards who use condoms or the pill?
It's always made more sense to me to invite all people and let their business be their business. The "weeding out" is done by God later, so I've been told anyway. But so few people follow their own advice.
They might as well shut out people who lie, cheat, have violent tendencies, drink or eat in excess, put money and things before their spirituality, feel jealous of their friends and loved ones constantly....
That's the big issue I have: Homosexual relations are a sin in the eyes of the church.. ok. And they choose to hold that particular sin over all the other ones that their devout followers commit every day. It's very visible, so gay people don't even have a chance to show that they're just as capable of good morals.
As for, do they have the right? Well... and it hurts me to say this, but... I guess they do. They live by a certain set of standards which I and many others find archaic, but that's their business. I think it's an incredibly stupid and callous thing to do. If I had any kind of control there, that decision wouldn't be mine. Even when I was Catholic, I believed that, for all the "common" sinners that are allowed through church and public school doors, we shouldn't have any problem with the people who commit slightly different kinds of sins. (To be clear, I don't think homosexual relations are a sin. I hope that's clear by now). That priest said during a sermon that the decision wasn't about "excluding sinners" but that's just what they're doing. They can't catch every liar, they can't catch every cheat or every glutton, but they CAN easily spot and exclude gay people, and that's the only difference. All of those things mentioned are sins in their eyes. I mean, shit, so many Catholics--MOST Catholics I've encountered--don't support the church's views on birth control, but are they going to go to the trouble of weeding out those bastards who use condoms or the pill?
It's always made more sense to me to invite all people and let their business be their business. The "weeding out" is done by God later, so I've been told anyway. But so few people follow their own advice.
#3
strawman
But you are right - it is easier to see that that are openly living in opposition to the church's teachings. I imagine if they were able to hide it as well as couples that use birth control can hide their opposition, then the student would probably be accepted.
I don't know what the interview process is, though. If the interviewer asks, "Do you strive to live according to and believe in all the principles and ordinances of this church?" then it's at that point that the family must either truly be living them, or lie during the acceptance process. I've no doubt that this happens - but if the family is truthful, and gets rejected, then goes and complains about it publicly - they are essentially saying that the school does not have the right to ask that question, and base enrollment qualifications on it.
strawman
Well, that and the liar might tell the church that they confess their sin, and work to stop lying, whereas the gay people openly oppose the church's teaching. They don't confess their sin because they don't believe in it. Which is fine for them, but I think that those who are comparing their actions to the actions of others aren't taking in the whole situation.That priest said during a sermon that the decision wasn't about "excluding sinners" but that's just what they're doing. They can't catch every liar, they can't catch every cheat or every glutton, but they CAN easily spot and exclude gay people, and that's the only difference.
But you are right - it is easier to see that that are openly living in opposition to the church's teachings. I imagine if they were able to hide it as well as couples that use birth control can hide their opposition, then the student would probably be accepted.
I don't know what the interview process is, though. If the interviewer asks, "Do you strive to live according to and believe in all the principles and ordinances of this church?" then it's at that point that the family must either truly be living them, or lie during the acceptance process. I've no doubt that this happens - but if the family is truthful, and gets rejected, then goes and complains about it publicly - they are essentially saying that the school does not have the right to ask that question, and base enrollment qualifications on it.
#4
phil
phil
It's not about punishing the child for what their parents do or believe....it's about punishing a child for what their parents do and believe.some jackass bigot said:"The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."
#5
Cajungal
Cajungal
Yeah... I know all that. It's why I said that they do have the right... grudgingly. A contract is a contract, even if it's stupid.
I talked to the fellow about it. He said that a lot of private schools, like the army, are kind of "don't ask, don't tell" about things like that, but if it comes out in public that someone is violating the agreement that comes with enrollment, they can't ignore it. It's still annoying to me... someone who knew for a fact how many hetero kids were having sex in closets at my Catholic school and got to stay. Hell, even the girl who got pregnant got to stay for her senior year. We all thought she'd be suspended.
Maybe that's why this shocks me so much. My private school was pretty cool about that kind of thing, probably because they were smart enough to accept tuition checks from wherever they could find them. But we had some Muslim and Jewish students enroll with no problem--they just had to behave according to the school rules, sit through weekly mass, and take theology classes.
Anyway, I'm getting away from the point. Just making a comment.
---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-08-2010 at 11:57 PM ----------
I talked to the fellow about it. He said that a lot of private schools, like the army, are kind of "don't ask, don't tell" about things like that, but if it comes out in public that someone is violating the agreement that comes with enrollment, they can't ignore it. It's still annoying to me... someone who knew for a fact how many hetero kids were having sex in closets at my Catholic school and got to stay. Hell, even the girl who got pregnant got to stay for her senior year. We all thought she'd be suspended.
Maybe that's why this shocks me so much. My private school was pretty cool about that kind of thing, probably because they were smart enough to accept tuition checks from wherever they could find them. But we had some Muslim and Jewish students enroll with no problem--they just had to behave according to the school rules, sit through weekly mass, and take theology classes.
Anyway, I'm getting away from the point. Just making a comment.
---------- Post added 03-09-2010 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was 03-08-2010 at 11:57 PM ----------
Yyyyyyyyyyyyyup, I love that line.It's not about punishing the child for what their parents do or believe....it's about punishing a child for what their parents do and believe.some jackass bigot said:"The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."
#6
strawman
Besides, the real punishment for the child, IMHO, would be sending them to a school that daily teaches them that their parents are vile sinners, and they must reject their parents if they are to receive their heavenly inheritance.
As far as I can tell, the parents aren't doing this for their child, and if somehow the student is accepted I only see trouble on the horizon when the parents decide that their student should be given alternatives to the school's religious teaching concerning marriage and family relationships.
strawman
Actually, he's saying, "It's about what the parents say in opposition to the church." A lot of churches allow members who are known to live outside the principles of the church. However, when those people start publicly saying that the church is wrong, and essentially preaching against some of the church's beliefs, then the church might feel that a line has been crossed - it's no longer about making personally "wrong" choices - it is about preaching and teaching others.It's not about punishing the child for what their parents do or believe....it's about punishing a child for what their parents do and believe.some jackass bigot said:"The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."
Besides, the real punishment for the child, IMHO, would be sending them to a school that daily teaches them that their parents are vile sinners, and they must reject their parents if they are to receive their heavenly inheritance.
As far as I can tell, the parents aren't doing this for their child, and if somehow the student is accepted I only see trouble on the horizon when the parents decide that their student should be given alternatives to the school's religious teaching concerning marriage and family relationships.
#7
phil
phil
It doesn't look like they are speaking out against the catholic church though, unless being gay is speaking out against it.
You do have a point though, in that it's for the best that he or she probably not attend a bigoted institution anyway. Really everything about this just pisses me off.
You do have a point though, in that it's for the best that he or she probably not attend a bigoted institution anyway. Really everything about this just pisses me off.
#8
Troll
Troll
Since the school is private and does not receive government funds, they have the right to reject the student. And organizations have a right to protest them for doing so, and critics can rip them a new one all they want.
This has nothing to do with Prop 8. or people foolishly worried that the government recognizing gay marriage will force religious institutions to recognize them as well. This is just a religious group fighting with private citizens.
This has nothing to do with Prop 8. or people foolishly worried that the government recognizing gay marriage will force religious institutions to recognize them as well. This is just a religious group fighting with private citizens.
#9
@Li3n
@Li3n
Punishing a kid because of his parents is stupid. They'd never even consider it if the parents where unrepentant murderers or something...
Sorry, but that doesn't apply to marrying gay people... that would be more like condoning all those sins you mentioned.
But yeah, love thy neighbour, he without sin and all that...
That's the big issue I have: Homosexual relations are a sin in the eyes of the church.. ok. And they choose to hold that particular sin over all the other ones that their devout followers commit every day. It's very visible, so gay people don't even have a chance to show that they're just as capable of good morals.
As for, do they have the right? Well... and it hurts me to say this, but... I guess they do. They live by a certain set of standards which I and many others find archaic, but that's their business. I think it's an incredibly stupid and callous thing to do. If I had any kind of control there, that decision wouldn't be mine. Even when I was Catholic, I believed that, for all the "common" sinners that are allowed through church and public school doors, we shouldn't have any problem with the people who commit slightly different kinds of sins. (To be clear, I don't think homosexual relations are a sin. I hope that's clear by now). That priest said during a sermon that the decision wasn't about "excluding sinners" but that's just what they're doing. They can't catch every liar, they can't catch every cheat or every glutton, but they CAN easily spot and exclude gay people, and that's the only difference. All of those things mentioned are sins in their eyes. I mean, shit, so many Catholics--MOST Catholics I've encountered--don't support the church's views on birth control, but are they going to go to the trouble of weeding out those bastards who use condoms or the pill?
It's always made more sense to me to invite all people and let their business be their business. The "weeding out" is done by God later, so I've been told anyway. But so few people follow their own advice.
Sorry, but that doesn't apply to marrying gay people... that would be more like condoning all those sins you mentioned.
But yeah, love thy neighbour, he without sin and all that...
#10
tegid
tegid
So can I open a school that only admits white people or children from non mixed race marriages if I think black people shouldn't have children?
Or the murderers thing @lien said...
Or the murderers thing @lien said...
#11
Cog
Cog
People can't change his race. Religion is a choice, why you would like to enroll your child in a religious school if you do not like such religion?
#12
tegid
tegid
Because they have good teaching standards, for instance.
#13
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
A friend of mine had a son kicked out of a church run school because the child was singing the Rob Zombie song he heard in the car, while he was walking into class.
Private institutions can make most any decision that they like, no matter how wrong they are.
Private institutions can make most any decision that they like, no matter how wrong they are.
#14
Bowielee
Bowielee
Because, of course, gay people are all godless sinners. One could never possibly believe that they believe in a religion. :eyeroll:People can't change his race. Religion is a choice, why you would like to enroll your child in a religious school if you do not like such religion?
#15
Cog
Cog
It's not about sinners. I don't care about that. It's about beliefs. If the KKK had the best school in the whole world, would you like your children to go there?
#16
Bowielee
Not all gay people are atheists, y'know.
Bowielee
My point went right over your head. Don't you think it's possible that the parents of the child are religious people, and that's why they wanted to send their child to a religious school?It's not about sinners. I don't care about that. It's about beliefs. If the KKK had the best school in the whole world, would you like your children to go there?
Not all gay people are atheists, y'know.
#17
Cog
Cog
They are religious people who are against the beliefs of the religion they belong?
#18
Bowielee
Bowielee
Yes, that is entirely possible. I know many gay catholics. They may not believe in that part of the churches teachings, but it doesn't change their belief structure as a whole. Nothing annoys me more that when people assume absolutes.
#19
Cog
Cog
Maybe you are right about the schools. But I'm curious. Why gay catholics keeps calling themselves catholics? They are christians and christians come in a big variety of flavors. It's not like they can't be against another set of beliefs and keep the same god.
#20
tegid
tegid
Almost every catholic will disagree with some point or another of what the catholic church or the pope defend.
#21
Cog
Cog
That is why I stopped calling myself a catholic. Now I am "technically christian"
#22
Dei
Dei
Basically what I learned after being a Catholic from birth was that "Every Catholic is a bad Catholic." I don't really follow Catholicism anymore, because quite frankly, they are so out of touch with the world that it makes me sick. (It also helps that I no longer live in Buffalo which is Catholic central even though no one really understands how terrible they are at following what the Catholic Church believes.)
#23
Chazwozel
---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------
Chazwozel
They should take anyone that's willing to pay tuition and subscribe to their curriculum. I don't see why the kid's parents don't just put him in another school, unless, of course, that's the only school in the area. Says the kid's in pre-school. Usually Catholic schools have really cheap pre-school/day care programs.Should a private religious school be forced to enroll a student where the family is living in opposition to the school's teachings and beliefs?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/08/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2
This reminds me of all the people who said that private churches would never be forced to marry gay people, and yet here we are. If this goes through, sounds like supporters of proposition 8 will have a lot more firepower in their arsenal saying that if such marriages are recognized then the churches will have to support such relationships, even if they are not allowed in their teachings.
Given that this is a private religious school, is it within their rights to permit only those students where the student and their family subscribe to the teachings and beliefs of the church?
---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------
Same reason there are gay republicans? Being gay doesn't automatically alter things and ideals that you've been grown up with.Maybe you are right about the schools. But I'm curious. Why gay catholics keeps calling themselves catholics? They are christians and christians come in a big variety of flavors. It's not like they can't be against another set of beliefs and keep the same god.
#24
@Li3n
@Li3n
Same reason people who have sex outside (before) marriage do...Maybe you are right about the schools. But I'm curious. Why gay catholics keeps calling themselves catholics? They are christians and christians come in a big variety of flavors. It's not like they can't be against another set of beliefs and keep the same god.
Comment you're not going to see: Because they're pissed about a stupid decision?!I don't see why the kid's parents don't just put him in another school, unless, of course, that's the only school in the area.
#25
tegid
tegid
Also, Cog, don't forget that religion has a very important social component.
(For the record, I also think/thought that people who disagree significantly with one sect of a religion maybe should not say they are part of it, but I've come to accept thats just not how it works)
(For the record, I also think/thought that people who disagree significantly with one sect of a religion maybe should not say they are part of it, but I've come to accept thats just not how it works)
#26
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern
I don't think that faith should ever be a valid justification to get away with anything, at best, it only redirect/spread the guilt and people are very naivy when it comes to understand the weight of religion in ours lives or how impossible varied religions views can be.
#27
Iaculus
Iaculus
Me, I'd say that the school is entirely within its rights to pull stupid shit that's going to net it and its patron organisation a whooole lot of bad PR.
Unless it's taking funding from the government, there's no reason for them to take a part in this.
Unless it's taking funding from the government, there's no reason for them to take a part in this.
#28
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern
would you accept this if it was a non-religious school?Me, I'd say that the school is entirely within its rights to pull stupid shit that's going to net it and its patron organisation a whooole lot of bad PR.
Unless it's taking funding from the government, there's no reason for them to take a part in this.
#29
tegid
tegid
or for a non-religious reason?
Are bussinesses in the US in general allowed to choose their customers? Like, say, I own a groceries store and I decide we don't serve Mexicans. Is that legal?
Are bussinesses in the US in general allowed to choose their customers? Like, say, I own a groceries store and I decide we don't serve Mexicans. Is that legal?
#30
blotsfan
blotsfan
I believe restaraunt often say that they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. They just usually don't because it'd be bad for business.
#31
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
You can't discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, background, or gender if you are a business (like a store or restaurant). You CAN if your private club which has select membership and clearly states it's restrictions upfront (which is why things like the Aryan Nations are allowed to operate in open and why the Boy Scouts of America are allowed to kick out gay scouts and scoutmasters) OR if your customers don't meet any minimum standards you require and have posted (which is why a business can deny you service if you don't speak English, which technically isn't discrimination according tot he law).or for a non-religious reason?
Are bussinesses in the US in general allowed to choose their customers? Like, say, I own a groceries store and I decide we don't serve Mexicans. Is that legal?
#32
tegid
tegid
Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
#33
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Actually, it really can't. Private schools are allowed to set any standards of admission they want because they are technically private clubs. This is why it's still possible to have gender segregated schools in this day and age. You can't FORCE an private institution to accept a student for the same reason you can't force the Boy Scouts to take gay members.Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
#34
Green_Lantern
Question: Do you believe that is a good thing?
Green_Lantern
Actually, it really can't. Private schools are allowed to set any standards of admission they want because they are technically private clubs. This is why it's still possible to have gender segregated schools in this day and age. You can't FORCE an private institution to accept a student for the same reason you can't force the Boy Scouts to take gay members.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
Question: Do you believe that is a good thing?
#35
Cog
Cog
I don't know the answer.
That depends on your definition of "free country"
That depends on your definition of "free country"
#36
Espy
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
Espy
LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
#37
Philosopher B.
They should be free to act like giant douche-tards, then everyone else can point out their conduct as a shining example of douche-tardiness.
Philosopher B.
I'm going to have to agree with this fine, handsome devil of a poster.Me, I'd say that the school is entirely within its rights to pull stupid shit that's going to net it and its patron organisation a whooole lot of bad PR.
Unless it's taking funding from the government, there's no reason for them to take a part in this.
They should be free to act like giant douche-tards, then everyone else can point out their conduct as a shining example of douche-tardiness.
So it's not about sinners but it's about sinners?"The issue is not about our not accepting 'sinners,' " he said. "It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that."
#38
AshburnerX
Question: Do you believe that is a good thing?[/QUOTE]
I'm conflicted about it.
On one hand, I don't like the fact that some people are allowed to hide behind the law when they discriminate people. I have many gay/bi friends (including my best friend, even if she DRIVES ME INSANE) and the thought of them being denied the same privileges as straight people sickens me to no end. I'm also no big fan of certain religious organizations, having been forcefully indoctrinated into the Catholic faith at a time when I had no concept of what faith really was. I may have my own beliefs now, but a lot of what they teach you in Catholicism based education will DEEPLY fuck you up.
On the other hand, I don't believe it's right to force private groups to accept members they clearly don't want, especially if it goes against the religious beliefs of said group. One Man's rights end where another Man's rights begin and it is a miscarriage of justice any time you say that one of them is more deserving than another. You can't legislate morality, as much as we want to these days. You can only change opinions over time.
AshburnerX
Actually, it really can't. Private schools are allowed to set any standards of admission they want because they are technically private clubs. This is why it's still possible to have gender segregated schools in this day and age. You can't FORCE an private institution to accept a student for the same reason you can't force the Boy Scouts to take gay members.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
Question: Do you believe that is a good thing?[/QUOTE]
I'm conflicted about it.
On one hand, I don't like the fact that some people are allowed to hide behind the law when they discriminate people. I have many gay/bi friends (including my best friend, even if she DRIVES ME INSANE) and the thought of them being denied the same privileges as straight people sickens me to no end. I'm also no big fan of certain religious organizations, having been forcefully indoctrinated into the Catholic faith at a time when I had no concept of what faith really was. I may have my own beliefs now, but a lot of what they teach you in Catholicism based education will DEEPLY fuck you up.
On the other hand, I don't believe it's right to force private groups to accept members they clearly don't want, especially if it goes against the religious beliefs of said group. One Man's rights end where another Man's rights begin and it is a miscarriage of justice any time you say that one of them is more deserving than another. You can't legislate morality, as much as we want to these days. You can only change opinions over time.
#39
tegid
Ah, but you did say that they have to state their requirements upfront! Did this school have a clear rule of 'no gays' previously?
---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.
tegid
Actually, it really can't. Private schools are allowed to set any standards of admission they want because they are technically private clubs. This is why it's still possible to have gender segregated schools in this day and age. You can't FORCE an private institution to accept a student for the same reason you can't force the Boy Scouts to take gay members.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
Ah, but you did say that they have to state their requirements upfront! Did this school have a clear rule of 'no gays' previously?
---------- Post added at 07:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 AM ----------
LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.
#40
Bowielee
Bowielee
Quite frankly, the school was dumb for turning the kid away. They had a perfectly good opportunity to get the child to condemn his parents and become a poster child for religious intolerance.
Kick out a kid, you hate for a day.
Teach a kid to hate, and he'll spread it for the rest of his life.
Kick out a kid, you hate for a day.
Teach a kid to hate, and he'll spread it for the rest of his life.
#41
AshburnerX
Ah, but you did say that they have to state their requirements upfront! Did this school have a clear rule of 'no gays' previously?[/quote]
No idea, but it's pretty well known that the Christian faith itself is explicit on it's stance of homosexuality. Not knowing a Catholic school might not accept gay people is kind of like not knowing that a Jewish deli might be closed on Saturdays: It might not be posted, but it does relate to a tenat of their faith, so it IS well known.
AshburnerX
Actually, it really can't. Private schools are allowed to set any standards of admission they want because they are technically private clubs. This is why it's still possible to have gender segregated schools in this day and age. You can't FORCE an private institution to accept a student for the same reason you can't force the Boy Scouts to take gay members.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
Ah, but you did say that they have to state their requirements upfront! Did this school have a clear rule of 'no gays' previously?[/quote]
No idea, but it's pretty well known that the Christian faith itself is explicit on it's stance of homosexuality. Not knowing a Catholic school might not accept gay people is kind of like not knowing that a Jewish deli might be closed on Saturdays: It might not be posted, but it does relate to a tenat of their faith, so it IS well known.
#42
@Li3n
@Li3n
Except that having parents that are sinful isn't against any catholic beliefs that i ever heard of.On the other hand, I don't believe it's right to force private groups to accept members they clearly don't want, especially if it goes against the religious beliefs of said group. One Man's rights end where another Man's rights begin and it is a miscarriage of justice any time you say that one of them is more deserving than another. You can't legislate morality, as much as we want to these days. You can only change opinions over time.
#43
makare
makare
They have a right to not allow the kid and I have a right to think they are jerks.
#44
tegid
tegid
And this is what I meant could be argued.
(Also, what @lien said)
(Also, what @lien said)
#45
Iaculus
Ah, but you did say that they have to state their requirements upfront! Did this school have a clear rule of 'no gays' previously?[/quote]
No idea, but it's pretty well known that the Christian faith itself is explicit on it's stance of homosexuality. Not knowing a Catholic school might not accept gay people is kind of like not knowing that a Jewish deli might be closed on Saturdays: It might not be posted, but it does relate to a tenat of their faith, so it IS well known.[/QUOTE]
Except that there's that 'Let he who is without sin...' escape clause you could drive a truck through. Don't forget that it's equally explicit (to the point of using the precise same wording) regarding shellfish.
Remember, folks - they're within their rights to do this, and you're within your rights to protest the hell out of them.
Iaculus
Actually, it really can't. Private schools are allowed to set any standards of admission they want because they are technically private clubs. This is why it's still possible to have gender segregated schools in this day and age. You can't FORCE an private institution to accept a student for the same reason you can't force the Boy Scouts to take gay members.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the info!
Taking that into account, I can see how the school issue could be argued both ways...
Ah, but you did say that they have to state their requirements upfront! Did this school have a clear rule of 'no gays' previously?[/quote]
No idea, but it's pretty well known that the Christian faith itself is explicit on it's stance of homosexuality. Not knowing a Catholic school might not accept gay people is kind of like not knowing that a Jewish deli might be closed on Saturdays: It might not be posted, but it does relate to a tenat of their faith, so it IS well known.[/QUOTE]
Except that there's that 'Let he who is without sin...' escape clause you could drive a truck through. Don't forget that it's equally explicit (to the point of using the precise same wording) regarding shellfish.
Remember, folks - they're within their rights to do this, and you're within your rights to protest the hell out of them.
#46
Espy
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.
Espy
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.
#47
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Basically this. It's their right to look like giant douches, and it's our right to call them out on it.Remember, folks - they're within their rights to do this, and you're within your rights to protest the hell out of them.
#48
GasBandit
Late to the party, and I have nothing better to add than yet another "This."
GasBandit
Basically this. It's their right to look like giant douches, and it's our right to call them out on it.[/QUOTE]Remember, folks - they're within their rights to do this, and you're within your rights to protest the hell out of them.
Late to the party, and I have nothing better to add than yet another "This."
#49
tegid
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.
tegid
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.
#50
Espy
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.
Espy
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.
#51
Green_Lantern
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much yes, I do. If they are upset about it, fuck them. Nice to make it clear
Green_Lantern
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much yes, I do. If they are upset about it, fuck them. Nice to make it clear
#52
Espy
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much yes, I do. If they are upset about it, fuck them. Nice to make it clear[/QUOTE]
Wow.
Okay, well, I can't really argue with that kind of extreme view.
Espy
I don't think that's the same situation. What you are describing would be more akin to forcing a restaurant to serve someone who can't speak English, while the situation at hand is a bit more like the restaurant refusing to serve someone because they are Mexican.[/QUOTE][/COLOR]LOL. Nice.That depends on your definition of "free country"
The school down the street is a private music high school. You have to be amazingly talented to get accepted. The idea that the almighty guberment should FORCE them to take kids who can't play instruments is stupid.
You misunderstand my point. I'm less concerned with trying to create a 1-1 analogy, rather point out that we allow private institutions the right to make these kinds of calls, for better or for worse, depending upon their desires/beliefs/visions for the school. Whether or not the analogy is perfect the point is if you want the government to start controlling private institutions we have very different views of what a free country is. Which is fine, but it's not a road I'm willing to travel down nor the kind of country I'm interested in living in.[/QUOTE]
I get your point, but I think you should draw a line somewhere.[/QUOTE]
And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much yes, I do. If they are upset about it, fuck them. Nice to make it clear
[/QUOTE]Wow.
Okay, well, I can't really argue with that kind of extreme view.
#53
Green_Lantern
Green_Lantern
Well, can we still be friends? *hugs*
#54
Espy
View attachment 398
Espy
Oh... COME HERE YOU! I can't stay mad at you!Well, can we still be friends? *hugs*
View attachment 398
Attachments
-
34.6 KB Views: 284
#55
strawman
Many want to draw the line at "What you cannot change about yourself." This would include color, race, sex (well, you can change that now, to some degree), and others. Many people believe that sexual orientation also cannot be changed.
In your example, one can practice and generally improve their musical ability, but one cannot easily practice and improve their caucasian-ness. (Although Michale Jackson appears to have attempted the feat)
But that line is still drawn further back when it comes to religion, specifically due to the first amendment, which allows people to freely exercise their religion, and also allows citizens to peaceably assemble.
By definition, religions and clubs are allowed to exclude people based on in-born traits.
Still - what if the school accepted gov't funding per student that would normally go to a public school, and thus comes from people's taxes? The money would be spent either way, yet it sounds like that might cross a line for some...
strawman
And this goes back to the conflict of equality and freedom to practice religion.And where is that line? How far out should it be? You want the government to FORCE a private religious institution to not be allowed to set their own acceptance standards. Thats pretty far out for me.
Many want to draw the line at "What you cannot change about yourself." This would include color, race, sex (well, you can change that now, to some degree), and others. Many people believe that sexual orientation also cannot be changed.
In your example, one can practice and generally improve their musical ability, but one cannot easily practice and improve their caucasian-ness. (Although Michale Jackson appears to have attempted the feat)
But that line is still drawn further back when it comes to religion, specifically due to the first amendment, which allows people to freely exercise their religion, and also allows citizens to peaceably assemble.
By definition, religions and clubs are allowed to exclude people based on in-born traits.
Still - what if the school accepted gov't funding per student that would normally go to a public school, and thus comes from people's taxes? The money would be spent either way, yet it sounds like that might cross a line for some...
#56
tegid
tegid
If the school accepts gov money they lose the right to pick who they wanna teach, as I see it. (I don't know if this is what you meant).
#57
strawman
strawman
But why? That money is already set aside for teaching that pupil. If that pupil instead decides to use it for homeschooling, they can teach whatever they want to their student. If a few homeschoolers get together and pool their gov't money, they can teach whatever they want. Scale that up and you have a religious school. Why should they be forced to adopt a policy of non-discrimination when it's essentially their individual student's money to spend on their education as they see fit?If the school accepts gov money they lose the right to pick who they wanna teach, as I see it. (I don't know if this is what you meant).
#58
GasBandit
That's not how it works though. In the United States, at least, the money appropriated by taxation to pay for schooling can only go to public government schooling. Private schools, and homeschooling, is done entirely at the expense of the parents of the students, and they don't get their property tax money back either. A lot of americans WANT there to be a voucher system that would act as you are describing, but the most powerful union in the nation, the teacher's union (and the most dangerous and malignant political force in the nation, if you ask me) staunchly opposes the legalization of educational vouchers. So, we continue to pay taxes to support government schooling, even if you don't send your child to government school. And then you have to pay private school tuition out of pocket on top of that.
GasBandit
But why? That money is already set aside for teaching that pupil. If that pupil instead decides to use it for homeschooling, they can teach whatever they want to their student. If a few homeschoolers get together and pool their gov't money, they can teach whatever they want. Scale that up and you have a religious school. Why should they be forced to adopt a policy of non-discrimination when it's essentially their individual student's money to spend on their education as they see fit?[/QUOTE]If the school accepts gov money they lose the right to pick who they wanna teach, as I see it. (I don't know if this is what you meant).
That's not how it works though. In the United States, at least, the money appropriated by taxation to pay for schooling can only go to public government schooling. Private schools, and homeschooling, is done entirely at the expense of the parents of the students, and they don't get their property tax money back either. A lot of americans WANT there to be a voucher system that would act as you are describing, but the most powerful union in the nation, the teacher's union (and the most dangerous and malignant political force in the nation, if you ask me) staunchly opposes the legalization of educational vouchers. So, we continue to pay taxes to support government schooling, even if you don't send your child to government school. And then you have to pay private school tuition out of pocket on top of that.
#59
Troll
Troll
Ew. You got some libertarian in my education thread.
Steinman: If the school gets government funding, they cannot discrimate in any way because that would be de facto government discrimination. The government would then be condoning and supporting whatever type of discrimination that school practices, like keeping students with gay parents out. Siilarly, if the government funds a religious school it is considered de facto support and/or preference of that religion. So, if you want a school that either A) favors a religion, or B) refuses students based on any criteria such as race, gender, sexual preference, etc., you have to use private funds to do so.
Steinman: If the school gets government funding, they cannot discrimate in any way because that would be de facto government discrimination. The government would then be condoning and supporting whatever type of discrimination that school practices, like keeping students with gay parents out. Siilarly, if the government funds a religious school it is considered de facto support and/or preference of that religion. So, if you want a school that either A) favors a religion, or B) refuses students based on any criteria such as race, gender, sexual preference, etc., you have to use private funds to do so.
#60
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I was kicked out of the boyscouts when I was a little kid for saying I didn't know if there was a God.
Of course, that particular troop was run by a mom who was way too serious about everything.
And I didn't like being in the boyscouts anyway, so it's not like anything I felt like fighting.
Do I think they had the right to do that? Yeah, private organization and all that. Does that make the action itself right? Prolly not, but I don't care enough to make that call. Fine line in that distinction.
Of course, that particular troop was run by a mom who was way too serious about everything.
And I didn't like being in the boyscouts anyway, so it's not like anything I felt like fighting.
Do I think they had the right to do that? Yeah, private organization and all that. Does that make the action itself right? Prolly not, but I don't care enough to make that call. Fine line in that distinction.
#61
AshburnerX
Also, here's the explict reason for why private schools can do this: Freedom of Association, which is implicit in the First Amendment. A religious school falls under the purvey of Expressive Associations and as BSA v. Dale was decided, a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.
AshburnerX
This is particularly odd because the Boyscouts have multicultural equivalents in many other nations (all of which are united under the World Organization of the Scout Movement, which is based out of Geneva). Most of these do not have the same rules about religion or sexual orientation.I was kicked out of the boyscouts when I was a little kid for saying I didn't know if there was a God.
Of course, that particular troop was run by a mom who was way too serious about everything.
And I didn't like being in the boyscouts anyway, so it's not like anything I felt like fighting.
Do I think they had the right to do that? Yeah, private organization and all that. Does that make the action itself right? Prolly not, but I don't care enough to make that call. Fine line in that distinction.
Also, here's the explict reason for why private schools can do this: Freedom of Association, which is implicit in the First Amendment. A religious school falls under the purvey of Expressive Associations and as BSA v. Dale was decided, a group may exclude people from membership if their presence would affect the group's ability to advocate a particular point of view. The government cannot, through the use of anti-discrimination laws, force groups to include a message that they do not wish to convey.
#62
Ravenpoe
The boyscouts of america have a rule that states you must have faith in god. It doesn't specify which god, or what religion, just that you have some religion. Of course, how much this is enforced is going to be based on who's running that particular group.
But like I said: do I agree with that particular line of thought? Nope. Do they have the right to think it, and exclude me? Yup.*
*Though, I do have some issues with the Boyscouts of America as an organization, but that has more to do with public funds going to their private organization. But that's another thread.
Ravenpoe
This is particularly odd because the Boyscouts have multicultural equivalents in many other nations (all of which are united under the World Organization of the Scout Movement, which is based out of Geneva). Most of these do not have the same rules about religion or sexual orientation.[/QUOTE]I was kicked out of the boyscouts when I was a little kid for saying I didn't know if there was a God.
Of course, that particular troop was run by a mom who was way too serious about everything.
And I didn't like being in the boyscouts anyway, so it's not like anything I felt like fighting.
Do I think they had the right to do that? Yeah, private organization and all that. Does that make the action itself right? Prolly not, but I don't care enough to make that call. Fine line in that distinction.
The boyscouts of america have a rule that states you must have faith in god. It doesn't specify which god, or what religion, just that you have some religion. Of course, how much this is enforced is going to be based on who's running that particular group.
But like I said: do I agree with that particular line of thought? Nope. Do they have the right to think it, and exclude me? Yup.*
*Though, I do have some issues with the Boyscouts of America as an organization, but that has more to do with public funds going to their private organization. But that's another thread.
#63
Chazwozel
That's not how it works though. In the United States, at least, the money appropriated by taxation to pay for schooling can only go to public government schooling. Private schools, and homeschooling, is done entirely at the expense of the parents of the students, and they don't get their property tax money back either. A lot of americans WANT there to be a voucher system that would act as you are describing, but the most powerful union in the nation, the teacher's union (and the most dangerous and malignant political force in the nation, if you ask me) staunchly opposes the legalization of educational vouchers. So, we continue to pay taxes to support government schooling, even if you don't send your child to government school. And then you have to pay private school tuition out of pocket on top of that.[/QUOTE]
And stocks. Private prepschools wouldn't have near enough money to operate if it was all based on tuition and private donations.
Chazwozel
But why? That money is already set aside for teaching that pupil. If that pupil instead decides to use it for homeschooling, they can teach whatever they want to their student. If a few homeschoolers get together and pool their gov't money, they can teach whatever they want. Scale that up and you have a religious school. Why should they be forced to adopt a policy of non-discrimination when it's essentially their individual student's money to spend on their education as they see fit?[/QUOTE]If the school accepts gov money they lose the right to pick who they wanna teach, as I see it. (I don't know if this is what you meant).
That's not how it works though. In the United States, at least, the money appropriated by taxation to pay for schooling can only go to public government schooling. Private schools, and homeschooling, is done entirely at the expense of the parents of the students, and they don't get their property tax money back either. A lot of americans WANT there to be a voucher system that would act as you are describing, but the most powerful union in the nation, the teacher's union (and the most dangerous and malignant political force in the nation, if you ask me) staunchly opposes the legalization of educational vouchers. So, we continue to pay taxes to support government schooling, even if you don't send your child to government school. And then you have to pay private school tuition out of pocket on top of that.[/QUOTE]
And stocks. Private prepschools wouldn't have near enough money to operate if it was all based on tuition and private donations.
#64
Bowielee
Bowielee
For the record, I (the atheist, left wing, gay activist) believe that the school is completely within their rights.
Just as other's have said, It's their right to refuse anyone they choose, just as it's my right to think they're douchenozzles for doing so.
Just as other's have said, It's their right to refuse anyone they choose, just as it's my right to think they're douchenozzles for doing so.