You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 02, 2016, 04:35:26 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Archdiocese defends decision to deny children because of lesbian parents  (Read 3238 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/10/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2

I would like to know how many children are denied entrance to the school after it's discovered that their parents are divorced. Or if a mother is caught shoplifting. Or how about women who have had an abortion? I would like to know how many children are denied re-enrollment if it's discovered their father is sleeping with a woman other than his wife, and how many of them are denied for having mothers or fathers who are Episcopalian or perhaps even pagans.

Glass houses, folks. Glass houses.

Offline Sabby

Ah, and yet some time this year, The Pope will stand on his balcony to several thousand on lookers and a camera in his face and be all woe and pity for the world that strays so far from his club... How these people can continue to believe that their way of life is the only wholesome, morally fulfilling one, and that the Churchs decline is anyones fault but their own, is nothing short of an Ostric move. Right now, the only thing that will stave off their slow descent into cultural obscurity is to pull their head out of the sand and their collective bowels.

To put it in a simpler, but far cruder fashion... wake the fuck up and practice what you preach.

Offline Callie Del Noire

If I was the kid's parents.. I think I'd see how much public funding for the school did the church got. That could be a LOT more telling (and financially hurtful to the school) and if they had a good relationship with the state board of education and/or a state rep of some sort it could make the problem could go away.

Last thing the church wants is negative publicity AND loss of funds.

Offline Strungintandum

Unfortunatly, they often practice what they preach a little too much. If the actions of these theists seems horrific and nonsensicle, it is likely because what they actually believe is horrific and nonsensical. These sorts of descisions have no real basis in their proclaimed holy book, but someone who willingly accepts a whole battery of immoral nonsense is probably likely to act imorally and without sense. This is what a daily dose of idiocy leads to.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
That's a bit harsh. The people may be nonsensical, but the religion is made up of its people. I might also note that I have known many caring and loving Catholics.

Please keep the sweeping generalizations and the denouncements of theism as a whole to yourself, thanks.

Offline Jude

I don't see the problem.  They believe homosexuality is a sin, so why shouldn't they keep homosexuals from enrolling their children in their school?

If anything, the children are winning out because they're not getting a private school education where they're likely to be indoctrinated.

Offline Scribbles

Jude, I also believe they have that right but why can they not simply state as much rather than resorting to all these complex workarounds?

Also, doesn't it make one wonder what would happen if there was a slight change in parents while enrolled?

Online HairyHeretic

  • Lei varai barbu - The true bearded one
  • Knight
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Location: Ireland
  • Gender: Male
  • And the Scorpion said "Little frog .. I can swim."
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
I don't see the problem.  They believe homosexuality is a sin, so why shouldn't they keep homosexuals from enrolling their children in their school?

They see lots of other things as sins too. If they banned the children of all parents who committed those other sins I bet they'd have pretty small classes.

Offline Jude

They see lots of other things as sins too. If they banned the children of all parents who committed those other sins I bet they'd have pretty small classes.
I'm not even gonna try to apply logic to it--religion, especially catholicism, is not one area where you can try and make sense of things.

They would probably talk about different types of sins, or some other jargon; really it's a pointless argument because it cannot be won.  The bottom line for me is that they're a private organization and have the right to choose who can and cannot partake in their activities.

This isn't like the Boyscouts (who are guilty of gay discrimination and are without a defense because they take a lot of public money).

Offline Kip

I had a quick look at the article and it seems that, at least publicly, it's not homosexuality that is the issue.  It's people having sexual relations out of wedlock and because same-sex marriage isn't approved that means that the issue is with all same sex couples.  More than that though, by extension, you'd better hope there is no de facto relationships going on.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
It's pretty much, "We think it's a sin and they're not sorry for it because they don't." But the kids shouldn't have to suffer for the relationship choices of the parents, and it's not like the school didn't know they were lesbians before.

Offline Scribbles

I just wanted to quickly dispel any beliefs that all Catholics are as unbending as well as some other notions Iíve seen mentioned.

I actually attended a private Catholic school and we not only had a lesbian teacher but we also had a number of students who belonged to divorced parents or even different religions. And we were certainly not ďindoctrinatedĒ, or at least not as much as any school really is indoctrinated with the beliefs of the area it resides. The priests and nuns were always separate from the educators/lessons and if anything our teachers tried to open our minds rather than indoctrinate them, with some even moving into controversial territory. For example, I actually had a history teacher that had us questioning the nobility of Mandela and whether or not Hitler was really all that bad. Some of our teachers even had us questioning Catholicism. It sounds extreme but as she said, you have to sometimes shake the really imprinted beliefs to get some people thinking laterally.

Just to top it off, Iíd like to say that I know a lot more government schools that have political affiliations and are subject to propaganda than private. Iím not saying there are no private schools with political agendas or attachments, just that you canít really claim one "indoctrinates" its students and not the other.

Offline Jude

I wasn't talking about political indoctrination, but religious.  Private religious schools are great for sheltering your child and imprinting them with a philosophy; i.e. indoctrination.  Public schools do not teach religion and they shouldn't be talking about politics either.  If there's any solid evidence of that, the media would be all over it (they were already pretty upset over a few schoolchildren singing an Obama song, which if I recall had another angle to the story that they ignored completely).

As for the "not all Catholics are intolerant of gays" thing, I don't think it really matters what an individual catholic believes.  You're sending money up the foodchain to the bigot-in-chief who tells people in Africa that condoms will increase their chances of getting aids.  As long as you're supporting an institution guilty of so much, including persecution of homosexuals, it doesn't matter if you individually think you can be an exception to the rule.

At least these people are acting on their beliefs instead of picking and choosing.  Even if it is disgusting, people need to see that this is what the catholic church stands for.

Offline Lilias

Public schools do not teach religion and they shouldn't be talking about politics either.

Perhaps not in the US, but in other countries, public schools do teach religion, same as they have official state religions. And I don't mean the Middle East either. In the UK, there's compulsory RE for several years, including comparative religions study. In Greece, RE is compulsory throughout, and geared towards the Eastern Orthodox faith that is official there. Kids simply take it or leave it, like with any other subject.

As for not talking about politics, does that mean not teaching civics either? Because if that's what you mean, then 18-year-olds would go to the ballot box even more ignorant than they are now, and there's no teaching civics without current political references.

Offline Scribbles

Iím afraid it sounds as if your view is limited to the USA while Iím taking into account a number of countries. And as I said, my school as well as Catholic schools Iíve visited have not only had a plethora of students who worship different religions but they also draw a heavy line between religion and our education. They even allowed Muslim, Jewish, and other students to take time off for their religious days. There are those that donít, I know this for a fact but Iíd hardly start painting all private schools with the same brush while exonerating every public school; or vice versa. Also, I disagree that entire schools count as individuals, just as much as I wouldnít say one loud mouth represents a crowd.

There are public schools which teach religion out there and there are public schools with strong political affiliations. And the same could be said for private schools. In many of the countries the newspapers did make an outcry but sometimes I wonder how effective the news is in some places.

As for feeling guilty due to the utterances of a single person in a large group, Iíll have to disagree again. Youíre oversimplifying something which spans an entire world. Catholics can disagree with their leaders and theyíre not at fault for retaining their faith for the aspects they do support and the people which do inspire them just because of a few hiccups. Iíd hate to think what would happen if voters left every party that they disagreed with on a few pointsÖ might as well not vote; might as well not believe in anything.

On a more interesting note Iíd like to add that I knew only a handful of truly Catholic students in my school while most others, including myself, were skeptical each time Catholicism was even mentioned.

Clearly the indoctrination of cramming it down ones throat isnít too effective. :P

Offline Torch

  • Pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain/Trieste's sarcasm buddy
  • Suspended
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Location: USA
  • Gender: Female
  • "Soul meets soul on lovers' lips." P.B. Shelley
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Public schools do not teach religion and they shouldn't be talking about politics either. 

Many public high schools in the US offer a comparative or world religions course as an elective. And a political science course is a required part of every public high school curriculum.

Offline Strungintandum

That's a bit harsh. The people may be nonsensical, but the religion is made up of its people. I might also note that I have known many caring and loving Catholics.

Please keep the sweeping generalizations and the denouncements of theism as a whole to yourself, thanks.

I am not speaking about all chatholics or all theists, I am speaking about these spciric chatholics and their actions. There are loving and caring racists but I would still denounce their views on race. What's more, this is a board for the discussion of politics and religion, so what is the problem with me posting my views and beliefs on the subject? If a theist on here claimed that killing non-christians was fine, I would not tell them to keep their view to themselves, I would explain why I belived their view was wrong. Just because my view is in the minority, I should keep it to myself? That is a horrible way to foster free discussion. If someone disagrees with apoint I've made, I would appeciate it if they counter my point instead of just telling me to shut it.

As to the right of a school to not allow the children in, Why are the children responsible for their parents beliefs or actions? What's more, if that school receives federal tax dollars, they should give up their right to claim status as a private organization and should be forced to accept the children. If my money goes to fund something, Inwant to know that they aren't being discriminatory. 

Online Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
As to the right of a school to not allow the children in, Why are the children responsible for their parents beliefs or actions? What's more, if that school receives federal tax dollars, they should give up their right to claim status as a private organization and should be forced to accept the children. If my money goes to fund something, Inwant to know that they aren't being discriminatory. 

In my experience, most religious schools are private schools.  In other words, they are funded by the tuition that they receive.  The taxes that Joe Average pays go to the public schools.  So, even though I disagree with the archdiocese's decision and rationale, it's no different from a stitchers' guild disallowing knitters.  As a parent, I'd have to also consider what kind of environment that school would provide for my child if the faculty/administration had such strong feelings about my home life.  There are other schools - even other private schools - that have no such agenda.

Offline Strungintandum

Yes, it is true that most private schools receieve no federal funding. Some do though and I believe those that do should have their funding or private status revoked if they are involved in discriminitory practices. Some private organizations tread a very fine line on the matter, sch as the boy scouts. That said, I agree wholeheartedly that private organizations should have say in who they do and do not allow in for whatever reasons they wish. I don't care if private institutions are discriminitory, I am just interested in us as a nation keeping the public and private sectors well seperated and defined. Some of these organizations claim private status when they ar receiving funds or perks from the government.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
I am not speaking about all chatholics or all theists, I am speaking about these spciric chatholics and their actions. There are loving and caring racists but I would still denounce their views on race. What's more, this is a board for the discussion of politics and religion, so what is the problem with me posting my views and beliefs on the subject? If a theist on here claimed that killing non-christians was fine, I would not tell them to keep their view to themselves, I would explain why I belived their view was wrong. Just because my view is in the minority, I should keep it to myself? That is a horrible way to foster free discussion. If someone disagrees with apoint I've made, I would appeciate it if they counter my point instead of just telling me to shut it.

If someone came into this board and said "All non-christians are amoral murderers", I would tell them to avoid the sweeping generalizations, too. Either be more precise when you call someone "horrific and nonsensicle[sic]" and "likely to act imorally and without sense" or, better yet, keep the insults to yourself and keep to discussion instead of namecalling.

We foster free discussion, but within the limits of civility. We are not a political board, we are a roleplaying board.

Offline Strungintandum

Calling an immoral act immoral or an idiotic act idiotic is not an insult. I find it immoral to discriminate against people based on what people they are related to do. I also find it immoral to discriminate based on sexual preference and any number of other things. I also find it idiotic to discriminate as there is no logical reasoning behind the discrimination. When I referred to "they" in my original post, I was referring to the individuals who are perpetrating these acts and not referring to anyone who wasn't. I do not understand why it would be assumed I was speaking about anyone not involved in the discrimination. As to the beliefs themselves, It is logical to think that if a person believes their god is discriminatory, that they themselves will emulate the actions and beliefs of that proposed diety. I propsed that the individuals in the artcle were acting immorally and that they were acting that way because of immoral beliefs, I don't see why that is viewed as either acutely insulting or off topic.

While this board is for roleplaying, this board to my knowledge is not so I find myself uncertain to the bearing that has on this discussion. Obviously you may decide how you wish about whether you believe my stance to be unwarranted or my comments inflamitory. As to the first I would ask that you show that my comments are unwarrented and as to the second I can only assure you that they are not meant to be. I have no power but words to sway you. If you still think my comments are unacceptable, I don't know what else I can do to convince you that they are in good faith.

Offline TriesteTopic starter

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
... I think you're misunderstanding me, here. I'm not asking you to keep your comments more neutral, I'm telling you, as staff, that it is unacceptable on this board to paint with the wide brush you're using.

If you cannot understand why we would want you to be conscious of the feelings of others on this board, even if this particular board happens to be for politics and religion, then you should not be posting in the politics and religion section. Being conscious of others includes things like not using random "they" comments, but being clear about to whom you are referring.

I'm not going to show you how your comments were unacceptable, because I already told you: they were too broad. Make them more specific, or stay out of this particular sandbox.

Since you're an unapproved member, I know you can't PM. Therefore, if you wish to discuss the specifics of wording further, please post your questions here, rather than further derailing the thread with board semantics.

Thank you.

Offline Artema

Mmm, I would like to come between the two "fighting parties" there, e.g. Strungintandum and Trieste, and say that Strungintandum's original message was indeed not very well written, to a point that I did not understood it until Strungintandum's later clarifications.

He writes: "Unfortunatly, they often practice what they preach a little too much. If the actions of these theists seems horrific and nonsensicle, it is likely because what they actually believe is horrific and nonsensical."
Reading this, one can easily conclude that "they" of the message are "theists", in general, whose theistic beliefs are in general horrific and nonsensical.
It makes, howerver, the rest of Strungintandum's message inconsistent, as he further writes "These sorts of descisions have no real basis in their proclaimed holy book". So, in effect, the second part of the message might be read as a defence of the "holy book", which is being slanted by the all-too-human "lack of sense", "immorality" and "idiocy", which is shared by the "holy book" proponents.

We see thus, that the original assault of Strungintandum was not against the theists per se, but against the idiocy in general. However, his manner of writing was offensive, and his way of expression - elusive.
In his defence, where he tries to clarify his innocence in assaulting the theists, he keeps the elusive form, never prooving his statements but presenting them as obvious and laying the burden of proving him wrong on his opponent. This method of discussion, as we can see, wasn't constructive or convincing enough to Trieste, who continued to press Strungintandum for something more solid, adding her administrative status to the pressure.

I think, maybe, to resolve this, Strungintandum would have to be more forthcoming with explaining his original statements and admitting that they allowed for a wrong interpretation.

Online Doomsday

I wonder how many young boys Archbishop Chaput has diddled since the children were denied.

Online Valerian

Let's try to keep comments here both on track and useful, mmkay?