Should private religious school be forced to enroll student...
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
P
Philosopher B.
I'm going to have to agree with this fine, handsome devil of a poster.
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?
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]
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
Except that having parents that are sinful isn't against any catholic beliefs that i ever heard of.
M
makare
They have a right to not allow the kid and I have a right to think they are jerks.
I
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]
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.
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]
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.
Basically this. It's their right to look like giant douches, and it's our right to call them out on it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Basically this. It's their right to look like giant douches, and it's our right to call them out on it.[/QUOTE]
Late to the party, and I have nothing better to add than yet another "This."
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]
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.
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]
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.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
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]
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
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]
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.
Green_Lantern
Staff member
Well, can we still be friends? *hugs*
Attachments
And this goes back to the conflict of equality and freedom to practice religion.
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...
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?
GasBandit
Staff member
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
C
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]
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.
- Status