Catholic School Rejects Child Because Parents Are Gay

A Catholic preschool in Boulder Colorado has refused to admit a child with gay parents.

What can you even say about an appalling story like this? Punishing the innocent doesn’t seem like something Jesus would have approved of.

BOULDER, Colo. — A preschooler is caught in the middle of a fight between religion and sexuality. Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School, in Boulder, has refused to readmit a preschooler because the child has two moms. Her parents are lesbians.

“God and Jesus would not allow discrimination in that way,” said Joellen Raderstorf, one of about two dozen demonstrators who turned out at Sunday’s church service.

Most of the protesters stood silently, across the street, holding signs. One read “God loves all people.” Some of them went inside during mass. The priest addressed the situation in his sermon.

“He feels like it’s a calling to be strict with upholding the Catholic principles,” said Dave Ensign, president of the Board of Directors of Boulder Pride, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organization.

“People who understand the Catholic teaching will understand why the decision was made,” said Fabien Ardila, a member of the parish.

Jump to bottom

216 comments
1 swamprat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:44:13pm

Blaming a child for what the parents do is wrong.

2 teleskiguy  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:45:30pm

Interesting. Even liberal and tolerant Boulder has their bigots.

3 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:14pm
4 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:38pm

The nun who is the principal at my daughter’s Catholic school is outraged.

5 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:53pm

no shirt, no shoes, no service

6 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:46:56pm

I saw this earlier tonight. I was disgusted then. I’m disgusted now. Children should never be used as pawns in a political fight. Jesus said suffer (allow) the little children. Obviously they seem to have forgotten that passage.

7 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:47:58pm
8 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:48:04pm

Well, my daughter’s school isn’t perfect. They teach the kids that the Pledge of Allegience ends: …with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.

9 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:49:26pm

re: #2 teleskiguy

Interesting. Even liberal and tolerant Boulder has their bigots.

Boulder County is not tolerant as far as conservatives are concerned…there is no more conceited town in the entire Rocky Mtn west, except maybe Santa Fe….tolerance? please

10 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:50:30pm

re: #3 mikeysdca

What can you say? Is anyone really surprised? Don’t forget that this is Colorado, where they don’t have air.

On behalf of Walter, I resent that.

11 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:51:16pm

Thinking back on it, I really can’t remember having much trouble with intolerence from the nuns and priests I’ve encountered over the years. I don’t think intolerence goes very far in the big city.

12 teleskiguy  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:51:36pm

re: #9 albusteve

You’re right. The town-folk like to say they’re tolerant. But they harbor bastards like Ward Churchill.

13 [deleted]  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:31pm
14 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:43pm

the Church missed the bus…our culture will not put up with this shit forever, there may come a time when they are utterly rejected for their narrow ideology, wealth and awful costumes

15 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:52:55pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

On behalf of Walter, I resent that.

Let Walter take care of himself. When he catches his breath.

16 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:53:51pm

re: #12 teleskiguy

You’re right. The town-folk like to say they’re tolerant. But they harbor bastards like Ward Churchill.

whatever, I’m not impressed with Boulder

17 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:54:47pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

On behalf of Walter, I resent that.

you don’t need to feel resented on others behalf…calm down

18 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:55:13pm

re: #15 stevemcg

Let Walter take care of himself. When he catches his breath.

Fair enough. i was just kidding, anyway. He doesn’t need me to fight his battles for him.

19 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:56:26pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

Fair enough. i was just kidding, anyway. He doesn’t need me to fight his battles for him.

I was just trying to get in a joke on the air angle anyway.

20 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:56:31pm

re: #16 albusteve

whatever, I’m not impressed with Boulder

Got some nice trails in the outskirts. 5 miles on the trail up, then five miles back. Careful on that run back - uphill runs make you sore, but downhill runs make you hurt.

21 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:56:32pm

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

Fair enough. i was just kidding, anyway. He doesn’t need me to fight his battles for him.

he doesn’t live in Boulder dude

22 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:57:16pm

Does he live in South Park?

23 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:57:45pm

re: #22 stevemcg

Does he live in South Park?

ask him

24 jaunte  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:58:10pm

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

Walter lives above the air.

25 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 9:58:29pm

re: #23 albusteve

ask him

Yo Wally, what’s your 20?

26 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:00:11pm

re: #8 stevemcg

Well, my daughter’s school isn’t perfect. They teach the kids that the Pledge of Allegience ends: …with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.

I hope you’re joking.

How about “in prison or out”? Or “foreclosed or not”? Or “with job or unemployed”? Or [shudder] “Christian or otherwise”?

After I got to third grade, I refused to say the “pledge” because I already hated rote piety.

My parents were proud of me.

27 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:00:15pm

Anyway, I don’t know which is worse, the priest who made the decision or the lame defense by the parishioner.

28 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:01:35pm

re: #22 stevemcg

Does he live in South Park?

Actually, yes. The town that they used as the model for the show. In real life it has a different name.

29 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:01:36pm

re: #26 Cato the Elder

Serious. I make it a point to sit my ass down while they’re still saying the “born and unborn.”

30 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:01:49pm

How did this thread so quickly turn from the RCC denying education to children of gay parents to where Walter lives? Weird. I wonder sometimes where people are focused in their attention.

31 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:03:02pm

re: #30 Irenicum

We’ve been here before. Wringing our hands at peoples’ stupidity and trying not to look stupid ourselves. Well, maybe not THAT stupid.

32 swamprat  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:03:15pm

re: #30 Irenicum


Look! A sparkly!


/secret of NIHM reference

33 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:04:21pm

re: #30 Irenicum

How did this thread so quickly turn from the RCC denying education to children of gay parents to where Walter lives? Weird. I wonder sometimes where people are focused in their attention.

Monday Night ADHD thread. MNHT!

34 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:05:09pm

OK. I’m going to download another Vonnegut novel on the Kindle and read myself into a stupor.

G’nite, all.

35 jaunte  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:05:12pm

Selective enforcement:

However, the Archdiocese of Denver did issue this statement:

“To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment.”

Raderstorf said it seems there’s a double standard.

“I don’t think they interview to see what parents are divorced or what parents are using birth control or other things that are against the teaching of the Catholic Church,” she said.

36 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:05:47pm

re: #32 swamprat

re: #33 cliffster

Ooh, a monkey! Yeah, I guess we do live in the internet age. Sad in some ways.

37 SanFranciscoZionist  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:06:18pm

They’re denying a child a Catholic education because the parents do not follow the teachings of the Church in their private life.

I am SURE that none of the children in this pure school have parents who use artificial birth control, or have been divorced and remarried, or who are living together without the benefit of matrimony.

//Assholes.

38 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:02pm

“And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God”

39 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:21pm

re: #37 SanFranciscoZionist

I could kiss you! Exactly!

40 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:30pm

re: #35 jaunte

Selective enforcement:

that is their right…expressing our freedoms can get really fucked up at time like this tho

41 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:07:58pm

State pensions are chasing their losses?

Companies are quietly and gradually moving their pension funds out of stocks. They want to reduce their investment risk and are buying more long-term bonds.

But states and other bodies of government are seeking higher returns for their pension funds, to make up for ground lost in the last couple of years and to pay all the benefits promised to present and future retirees. Higher returns come with more risk.

42 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:08:26pm

Take two…

Clearly this is a political decision and not one based on ethics, morals or what they would call faith. Archbishop Charles Chaput is a signatory to the so-con and far-right inspired Manhattan Declaration. His involvement is described in an oddly titled piece called, Archbishop Chaput: Manhattan Declaration will ‘galvanize’ Christians in difficult times:

“I was glad to be invited to sign the declaration, and glad to sign because I believe in its content,” Archbishop Chaput told CNA. He described it as a “straightforward” statement defending the sanctity of life, religious liberty and the definition of marriage as a union of husband and wife.

The Declaration’s signers want people to realize “how difficult” the present moment in U.S. history is, he added.

“Our rights and liberties are never really guaranteed by words on a piece of paper. We guarantee them ourselves, under the sovereignty of God, by struggling for what we believe.”

I detect a little bit of Teabaggery in his words.

Oh, and here’s his Facebook page.

43 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:09:22pm

re: #3 mikeysdca

What can you say? Is anyone really surprised? Don’t forget that this is Colorado, where they don’t have air.

re: #10 Dark_Falcon

On behalf of Walter, I resent that.

I can’t imagine why, don’t you know that Walter doesn’t breath air?

44 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:10:37pm

re: #42 Gus 802

Oh, and here’s his Facebook page.

ugh.

45 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:11:48pm

re: #44 Irenicum

Oh, and here’s his Facebook page.

ugh.

Oh yeah. I wonder how many skeletons this one has in his closet.

46 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:12:38pm

re: #45 Gus 802

Oh yeah. I wonder how many skeletons this one has in his closet.

probably a walk in the size of my patio

47 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:13:21pm

re: #40 albusteve

that is their right…expressing our freedoms can get really fucked up at time like this tho

True. Still a dick move, though.

48 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:13:41pm

re: #46 albusteve

probably a walk in the size of my patio

You know how they say it’s in the eyes.

49 Cato the Elder  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:18:44pm
50 SpaceJesus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:18:57pm

how the hell did this ever happen in boulder

51 freetoken  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:23:02pm

re: #42 Gus 802

I wonder if he will be at the “A Cry to God” rally in DC on May 1st, along with many other RR leaders?

You know, the rally where they will declare that everything bad that happens to us is our fault because God is angry at us…

52 Lidane  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:23:34pm

Funny. Tuition still looks the same whether the parents are gay or straight.

53 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:24:09pm

I’m an evangelical Christian, so this is a difficult issue for me. My understanding of how I should read scripture leads me to a traditional reading of sexuality. Yet I have had many friends who are gay, lesbian, bi and transgender, and some of them are Christian. Some struggle with their desires, some don’t. But in any case, I love them all. They, like me, are made in God’s image. How can I be most Christian in my understanding and interaction with them? All I know is that I am no less and no more deserving of grace than anyone else. We are all broken in some such way. This issue is complicated. But I will say that the Boulder RCC is being especially hateful in how it’s addressing this issue. So sad.

54 cliffster  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:24:18pm

Night all.

55 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:26:49pm

re: #51 freetoken

God hates us all.

56 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:26:54pm

re: #51 freetoken

I wonder if he will be at the “A Cry to God” rally in DC on May 1st, along with many other RR leaders?

You know, the rally where they will declare that everything bad that happens to us is our fault because God is angry at us…

Here’s are some of his recent comment from a speech he recently gave at Houston Baptist University:

Now before ending, I want to turn briefly to the third point I mentioned earlier in my talk: the realities we face today, and what Christians need to do about them. As I was preparing these comments for tonight, I listed all the urgent issues that demand our attention as believers: abortion; immigration; our obligations to the poor, the elderly and the disabled; questions of war and peace; our national confusion about sexual identity and human nature, and the attacks on marriage and family life that flow from this confusion; the growing disconnection of our science and technology from real moral reflection; the erosion of freedom of conscience in our national health-care debates; the content and quality of the schools that form our children.

57 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:26:58pm

re: #50 SpaceJesus

how the hell did this ever happen in boulder

why not Boulder?…the Church is everywhere

58 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:27:25pm

re: #52 Lidane

Funny. Tuition still looks the same whether the parents are gay or straight.

True, but in this matter the Church has decided that their priority is not money. They want to make a moral point.

59 SpaceJesus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:27:33pm

re: #55 Slumbering Behemoth

God hates us all.

slayer kicks so much ass sometimes

60 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:29:06pm

re: #59 SpaceJesus

Sometimes? SOMETIMES?!? Blasphemer!!!

61 SpaceJesus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:29:13pm

re: #57 albusteve

why not Boulder?…the Church is everywhere


i didn’t think there were any conservatives anywhere near it

62 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:29:13pm

re: #55 Slumbering Behemoth

God hates us all.

Nice sendup. According to South Park, Slayer is also good for driving out hippies.

63 Lidane  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:30:22pm

re: #58 Dark_Falcon

True, but in this matter the Church has decided that their priority is not money. They want to make a moral point.

At the expense of a child’s education. What the hell kind of point is that? That a kid should be punished and denied because the parents are gay? It’s absurd.

I get what they’re saying, but it’s a lousy way to do it.

64 SpaceJesus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:30:26pm

re: #60 Slumbering Behemoth

Sometimes? SOMETIMES?!? Blasphemer!!!

diabolus

65 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:31:40pm

re: #53 Irenicum

I’m an evangelical Christian, so this is a difficult issue for me. My understanding of how I should read scripture leads me to a traditional reading of sexuality. Yet I have had many friends who are gay, lesbian, bi and transgender, and some of them are Christian. Some struggle with their desires, some don’t. But in any case, I love them all. They, like me, are made in God’s image. How can I be most Christian in my understanding and interaction with them? All I know is that I am no less and no more deserving of grace than anyone else. We are all broken in some such way. This issue is complicated. But I will say that the Boulder RCC is being especially hateful in how it’s addressing this issue. So sad.

they obviously think homosexuality is verboten…so be it…everyone believes something, that’s the seed of conflict….the human race will never be free from intolerance so you might as well get used to it

66 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:32:58pm

re: #61 SpaceJesus

i didn’t think there were any conservatives anywhere near it

liberals are like that…think they are the only weed in the yard

67 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:34:28pm

re: #63 Lidane

At the expense of a child’s education. What the hell kind of point is that? That a kid should be punished and denied because the parents are gay? It’s absurd.

I get what they’re saying, but it’s a lousy way to do it.

their choice of education….there are options

68 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:34:45pm

re: #64 SpaceJesus

Hell Awaits is my fav. album.

69 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:35:11pm

From Slayer, that is.

70 freetoken  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:36:31pm

The Tea Partiers have finally found their true leader?

White supremacist campaigns for Congress

He’s led the Ku Klux Klan , and founded his own white supremacist group. Now, Tom Metzger wants to add “congressman” to his controversial resume. The Warsaw, Indiana native is campaigning for the Third District Congressional seat held by Mark Souder .

“You got to have radical, independent people, going for power, that’s what you need,” said Tom Metzger. “I’m not running saying I got to win, I’m running saying I want change.”

The 71-year-old former KKK Grand Dragon and founder of the White Aryan Resistance has launched a campaign as a write-in candidate. He advertised his candidacy with a small ad in the Warsaw-Times Union Newspaper. It urged people frustrated with “the Republicrats” to “send them a real message.” The seven-line ad concluded with “Write in Thomas L. Metzger for Souder’s job, 3rd District.”

Dude is old-time “dixiecrat” in his ideology and likes to play on traditional Democratic Party sympathies (the working poor, union members.)

American politics - what goes around comes around.

71 iceweasel  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:37:10pm

re: #37 SanFranciscoZionist

They’re denying a child a Catholic education because the parents do not follow the teachings of the Church in their private life.

I am SURE that none of the children in this pure school have parents who use artificial birth control, or have been divorced and remarried, or who are living together without the benefit of matrimony.

//Assholes.

SFZed, we were talking about this story recently on a thread, and you came up because of a question I had— I thought it was fairly standard for Catholic schools to accept students that weren’t themselves Catholic, or whose parents weren’t Catholic. My Catholic (HS) was like that, anyway. Is that not so? Or, why would this be different? (I also mentioned some of the cases you just did.)

72 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:38:38pm

re: #65 albusteve

I don’t deny that the human race is driven by impulses that divide. Believe me, I know. But this is an issue that strikes pretty deeply for me. I know too many people, friends, that I look at as being too much like me, to see as a convenient other that I could easily dismiss.

73 SpaceJesus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:38:41pm

re: #69 Slumbering Behemoth

From Slayer, that is.


im kind of partial to reign in blood and show no mercy myself

74 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:39:39pm

re: #71 iceweasel

SFZed, we were talking about this story recently on a thread, and you came up because of a question I had— I thought it was fairly standard for Catholic schools to accept students that weren’t themselves Catholic, or whose parents weren’t Catholic. My Catholic (HS) was like that, anyway. Is that not so? Or, why would this be different? (I also mentioned some of the cases you just did.)

because they are gay?…it’s not complicated

75 Lidane  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:39:47pm

re: #53 Irenicum

How can I be most Christian in my understanding and interaction with them? All I know is that I am no less and no more deserving of grace than anyone else.

You answered your own question right after asking it. Just keep that in mind and treat others the way you want to be treated, and it’s all good.

Personally? I’m atheist. Been one now for almost 20 years, and probably even longer than that if I’m honest about it. Never really got the whole personal God thing despite my literalism as a kid, though I do understand the idea of there being things out there I can’t explain and that are greater than me.

I’m pretty laissez-faire when it comes to the romantic and sex lives of other people. As long as everyone involved is of the same species, over the legal age of consent, unrelated, and there of their own free will, I don’t give a damn what anyone does in the bedroom, or who they choose to fall in love with, so when I see things like this, it confuses me. I honestly, truly don’t get it.

76 Jack Burton  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:40:03pm

re: #70 freetoken

I take it that he doesn’t live in the San Diego area anymore. Good riddance.

77 Bagua  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:41:04pm

Segregation Done Past
MP3 Audio
- Mance Lipscomb

78 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:41:30pm

I don’t think you have to love everybody, but you do have to live with them.

79 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:43:49pm

re: #73 SpaceJesus

In light of that revelation, I humbly withdraw my previous declaration of blasphemy.

80 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:44:40pm

It’s implicit in this discussion that of course the public schools are just terrible and no one should ever be consigned to them.

Well, then, what is different about Catholic schools, Kipp schools, and so on? These other schools have some sort of social contract, some sort of discipline, some sort of cohesive story line about how life should be lived.

They, but not the public schools, are free to make their own rules as they best see fit. They, but not the public schools, can fire bad teachers. And they, but not the public schools, can require that the parents not be living their own lives as living, public, high-profile examples of the exact opposite of the school’s story line.

The outrage here is misguided. If this outrage prevails, then little by little, in the death of the thousand cuts, these non-public schools will be forced into the failed mold of the public schools.

And then, every last child everywhere will be consigned to the public schools. Not just one child, but all, will be deprived of the chance at an education in a system that marches to a different drummer and guides itself on its own star.

There is something ugly about the determination to quash religion that is animates the enlightened. Religion as quaint customs on Sunday may be OK, but those other people who think the awful way they do ought not be allowed to teach children {check}, provide adoption services {check}, provide charity {check} or do anything else by which they may live their faith through their lives and work.

It’s one thing to insist that any school has a duty to teach reading, writing, arithmetic, history, and science. That science includes evolution, whether your faith accepts that reality or not. That history includes some uncomfortable truths, like it or not. The State, and the wider society, cannot allow schools to march to their own drummers in matters that will raise adults who have no chance to participate as equals in a competitive, literate, technically intricate society.

But that is not what this Catholic school threatens to do. The children who attend almost certainly do at least as well as their comparison cohort, of equal native intelligence and socioeconomic background, who go to the local public school. And Denver public schools are decent, as public schools go.

People have rights that go beyond the individual. They have a right of association. They have a right to live by a faith. And the practical consequences for the rest of us, when we respect that right and uphold it, are on the whole salutary.

Swallow your outrage, step back, take a deep breath, and practice some tolerance. The little tyke isn’t the only issue here. The two women, who are not in fact both “mothers” of the child, are not the only issue either. Freedom of religion is on the line, and when we have our thinking caps on straight, we are friends of liberty. The main line of opinion in this thread is mired in inaccurate, unwise, and angry errors, both logical and moral.

P.S. the charge of moral error is not the same thing as the charge of wicked intentions. You-all are good people who mean well. I know no better bunch. But in this instance, I say you’ve made a mistake.

81 iceweasel  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:44:49pm

re: #74 albusteve

because they are gay?…it’s not complicated

Pretty much.

Just for you, albusteve:
Youtube Video

82 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:44:50pm

re: #79 Slumbering Behemoth

What was that all about, some sort of plea bargain?

83 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:49:10pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

well said, as usual

84 Irenicum  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:04pm

Well kids, g’nite all. I always appreciate the dialogue. See ya on the other side.

85 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:50:44pm

re: #81 iceweasel

Pretty much.

Just for you, albusteve:

[Video]

I like it alot…especially after K Richards popped up!…very cool song

86 Querent  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:52:18pm

re: #70 freetoken

re: (post)

bleepity bleep-bleep.

87 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:52:43pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

Agreed. We can think that the school made a mistake, but as a private school that takes no government money I’d have to say that the school has the right to exclude this child. That should be taken as an endorsement of the decision, but rather that it is their decision to make.

Goodnight, all.

88 iceweasel  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:52:53pm

re: #85 albusteve

I like it alot…especially after K Richards popped up!…very cool song

Posted the Johnny Cash just for you! me, I’d like Depeche Mode, but the official one won’t embed of course.

Youtube Video

89 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:53:39pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

Yes and no. They have the right to freedom of association and reject the child but we have the right to explain and voice our decent to those actions they take. This goes beyond mere freedom of religion issues because the Archdiocese of Denver and more particularly, the Archbishop Charles Chaput, is engaged in public dialogue that will effect public policy. They and he do not exist in a vacuum outside of the public sphere and Chaput’s primary purpose if to sway public opinion “through his flock” in order to change public policy.

These matters go well beyond this child being rejected. It includes Chaput’s very public stance regarding Roe vs. Wade; gay marriage; health care reform; his signing of the Manhattan Declaration and so on. It is no surprise then to find that Chaput is also author of the book, Render Unto Ceaser which is described as:

“Using arguments from history as well as the wisdom of the world’s greatest thinkers, Archbishop Chaput urges Catholics to live our faith without compromise and to use our faith as the foundation for renewing American society in the twenty-first century. His tone is one of ‘now or never,’ and his presentation is crisp, intelligent, and accessible to a wide audience. This is an important book for Catholics to read and consider if we are truly to make a difference in the public square. Archbishop Chaput has made a unique and significant contribution to the Church and the nation at a time when voices like his are needed to be raised and heard.”

Yes, they have a right to their voice and so do we on the other side. To suggest that we “play along” and allow them to speak and act unopposed would only lead to the capitulation of American society to, in this case, a Catholic theocracy.

90 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:54:36pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

The little tyke isn’t the only issue here. The two women, who are not in fact both “mothers” of the child, are not the only issue either.

Yes they are.

Talk as pretty as you want, that one sentence says it for me.

That child will consider both of them her mother. Deal with it.

91 Querent  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:54:49pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker
that’s one righteous rant (delivered in a very non-ranting tone)

92 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:54:53pm

they will cart me away in a box first…no fucking way
online.wsj.com

93 iceweasel  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:56:35pm

re: #92 albusteve

they will cart me away in a box first…no fucking way
[Link: online.wsj.com…]

I don’t see it happening. BTW, loads of leftie groups, including the ACLU, and various groups concerned with privacy, will also oppose it.

94 Lidane  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:56:50pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

It’s implicit in this discussion that of course the public schools are just terrible and no one should ever be consigned to them.

I’d argue that what’s implicit is the idea that a child should not be held accountable for their parents. It’s fine if the Catholic school doesn’t like the parents being gay, but to take that out on the kid is ridiculous.

I went to a private Catholic university. They had zero problems taking money from students who were gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, and considering what it cost me to go there, I could see why. I’d also be willing to wager that not every kid had straight parents, but their checks and credit cards cleared just the same.

It just happens that this particular school sees fit to punish a child for what they see as the sins of the parents. I don’t see how that’s fair or acceptable. Sure, the Church is opposed to homosexuality, but to take that out on a kid seems draconian, IMO.

95 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:58:24pm

re: #89 Gus 802

Yes and no. They have the right to freedom of association and reject the child but we have the right to explain and voice our decent to those actions they take. This goes beyond mere freedom of religion issues because the Archdiocese of Denver and more particularly, the Archbishop Charles Chaput, is engaged in public dialogue that will effect public policy. They and he do not exist in a vacuum outside of the public sphere and Chaput’s primary purpose if to sway public opinion “through his flock” in order to change public policy.

These matters go well beyond this child being rejected. It includes Chaput’s very public stance regarding Roe vs. Wade; gay marriage; health care reform; his signing of the Manhattan Declaration and so on. It is no surprise then to find that Chaput is also author of the book, Render Unto Ceaser which is described as:

Yes, they have a right to their voice and so do we on the other side. To suggest that we “play along” and allow them to speak and act unopposed would only lead to the capitulation of American society to, in this case, a Catholic theocracy.

so what do you propose?…you are playing with fire here, the Church can educate whoever they want, or not…it’s a free country, the Catholic Church has no designs on govt

96 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 10:59:39pm

re: #90 Obdicut

Yes they are.

Talk as pretty as you want, that one sentence says it for me.

That child will consider both of them her mother. Deal with it.

how Darwinian…science!

97 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:00:06pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

Holy shit. Should I take this point by point? First of all, the quality of education was never implied in any post. From the very start, it looks like you’re trying to inject your agenda.
All schools ultimately have a curriculum about how life should be lived. AND public schools are in fact allowed to make rules. That’s what school boards do. There is no such thing as the “exact opposite of the school’s story line” (as if there was such a thing in the first place.) As previously noted, and I can bear witness in my daughter’s case children of other religions attend Catholic School. She has a Muslim classmate, two whose parents are divorced, one whose mother has remarried. That’s not quite exact opposite to the school’s “story line”.
How about some passages previously quoted? “And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” Isn’t that part of the story line? Who here is trying to quash religion? If anything, people here seem shocked that a child cannot receive a Catholic education, instead of delighting in that child’s rejection. Freedom of association is not under attack, freedomn of religion is not under attack. Nobody here has said this should be against the law. Just because we call the priest an asshole doesn’t mean we are trying to take away his rights.
The charge of moral error is no different than the charge of wicked intentions.

98 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:01:14pm

re: #93 iceweasel

I don’t see it happening. BTW, loads of leftie groups, including the ACLU, and various groups concerned with privacy, will also oppose it.

I’m not too worried, I just need to flex my rugged, individualistic muscles…ha!

99 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:01:46pm

re: #95 albusteve

so what do you propose?…you are playing with fire here, the Church can educate whoever they want, or not…it’s a free country, the Catholic Church has no designs on govt

I’m not suggesting that they accept this child. I am merely pointing out that we reserve the right, and have the right to object without suggesting that they change their archaic and primitive ways.

Oh, by the way, the Catholic Church has not designs on government? Well, here’s Archbishop Charles Chaput with President George W. Bush. While they may not have designs to the fullest extent they do have designs on having a heavy influence on government and one that they enjoy freely.

100 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:01:53pm

re: #97 stevemcg

well-counter-ranted.

101 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:03:00pm

re: #99 Gus 802

I’m not suggesting that they accept this child. I am merely pointing out that we reserve the right, and have the right to object without suggesting that they change their archaic and primitive ways.

Oh, by the way, the Catholic Church has not designs on government? Well, here’s Archbishop Charles Chaput with President George W. Bush. While they may not have designs to the fullest extent they do have designs on having a heavy influence on government and one that they enjoy freely.

yes, I knew that….bitching at LGF is the norm

102 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:03:37pm

re: #101 albusteve

yes, I knew that…bitching at LGF is the norm

Your bitching too. Bitching about the bitching.

Si?

103 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:04:20pm

Oops, you’re not your. Damn grammar demons.

104 Bagua  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:05:03pm

Goin’ Down South
MP3 Audio
- RLB

105 kobra_55  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:06:25pm

I feel bad for the kid. Hope this child still receives a good education AND an apology from some high ranking Catholic official. I also hope there is more to this story than a religious organization judging a child based on the “sins” of the father(s).

106 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:07:18pm

re: #102 Gus 802

Your bitching too. Bitching about the bitching.

Si?

I accept the fact that the Catholic Church can educate whoever they want, and deny education to whoever they want as well…what’s the big deal?…it’s black and white…maybe their goers should stop giving them so much money…you know, influence with the pocketbook if they don’t like the decision…otherwise it’s their business….the outrage is so typical….ho hum

107 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:07:22pm

re: #102 Gus 802

Stop bitching about bitching about bitching about bitching.

/Mobius Bitch

108 Bagua  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:07:42pm

re: #80 lostlakehiker

Brilliantly articulated and compelling.

109 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:10:08pm

re: #108 Bagua

Brilliantly articulated and compelling.

Are you nuts? It starts with a false hypothesis, moves on to a false narrative and winds up with a disconnected conclusion.

110 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:11:10pm

re: #109 SteveMcG

Are you nuts? It starts with a false hypothesis, moves on to a false narrative and winds up with a disconnected conclusion.

ah, maybe you’re nuts…it’s not a scientific dissertation Einstein

111 Jack Burton  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:11:49pm

Not bitchy thread (yet) upstairs.

112 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:11:55pm

Don’t trip over any intellectual bars there, chief.

113 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:12:33pm

re: #106 albusteve

I accept the fact that the Catholic Church can educate whoever they want, and deny education to whoever they want as well…what’s the big deal?…it’s black and white…maybe their goers should stop giving them so much money…you know, influence with the pocketbook if they don’t like the decision…otherwise it’s their business…the outrage is so typical…ho hum

It’s political so it is my business. If you don’t read the politics in this act and the overall M.O. of the Archdiocese of Denver then you’re either blind, naive, or subjecting your thinking to self censorship.

You really ought to stop seeing outrage at every corner since that is not always the case. The only outrage I might feel is you frequent bellyaching about either a) the topics at LGF b) those posters that you perceive as being liberals and c) your tendency to make things personal.

114 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:12:36pm

re: #111 ArchangelMichael

Not bitchy thread (yet) upstairs.

This bitchy enough for ya’?

115 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:12:48pm

re: #97 stevemcg

Brilliantly articulated and compelling.

116 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:12:58pm

re: #112 SteveMcG

Don’t trip over any intellectual bars there, chief.

why don’t you respond to the post, chief?…you raging intellect you

117 Bagua  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:13:32pm

re: #109 SteveMcG

Are you nuts? It starts with a false hypothesis, moves on to a false narrative and winds up with a disconnected conclusion.

Not saying I concur, but I found his points well made and thought provoking. Your points were very good as well.

118 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:14:03pm

re: #116 albusteve

why don’t you respond to the post, chief?…you raging intellect you

Wich post, #80? Try #97.

119 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:14:20pm

Oh .

120 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:15:15pm

re: #115 Slumbering Behemoth

Oh kiss somebody else’s butt!

121 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:16:36pm

re: #120 SteveMcG

But, you keep yours so clean.

122 kobra_55  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:16:43pm

re: #117 Bagua

This is a great example of what makes for great chat dialogue! Recognizing the valid points of view and praising well thought out arguments…even when you DISAGREE with them. Thank you.

123 SteveMcGazi  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:17:24pm

re: #121 Slumbering Behemoth

No skid marks!

124 albusteve  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:18:28pm

re: #113 Gus 802

It’s political so it is my business. If you don’t read the politics in this act and the overall M.O. of the Archdiocese of Denver then you’re either blind, naive, or subjecting your thinking to self censorship.

You really ought to stop seeing outrage at every corner since that is not always the case. The only outrage I might feel is you frequent bellyaching about either a) the topics at LGF b) those posters that you perceive as being liberals and c) your tendency to make things personal.

it’s entertainment to me…you want to blow, go ahead…I don’t give a shit about some priest in Denver, I care about the law and it’s a waste of time to read all this bullshit in between the lines…can the CC turn this child away or not?…the rest is fluff…and it’s no secret I don’t fit in to 75% of the crap that gets posted here

125 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:19:58pm
126 Jack Burton  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:24:04pm
127 Gus  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:24:22pm
128 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:24:24pm

This really shows the victim complex of the modern right; it’s a living breathing example of victimhood and paranoia.

re: #80 lostlakehiker

They, but not the public schools, are free to make their own rules as they best see fit.


Right, because public school rules don’t come from humans; they come from the federal gub’mint. Sigh. This would be quite a shock to the pro-science parents and families who have seen their school’s curricula go full fundamentalist due to local school boards. Who do you think is setting the rules in public schools, our German overlords?

They, but not the public schools, can fire bad teachers. And they, but not the public schools, can require that the parents not be living their own lives as living, public, high-profile examples of the exact opposite of the school’s story line.

Right, and we all know it’s uncomfortable when religious schools throw out families for divorce, multiple marriages, adultery and statutory rape, but as a society we accept these intrusions into the private, private sphere because we know our religious schools need to be consistent.
Oh wait. That only happens if you’re gay.


The outrage here is misguided. If this outrage prevails, then little by little, in the death of the thousand cuts, these non-public schools will be forced into the failed mold of the public schools.


Right, because the belief that schools shouldn’t treat children based on selectively-enforced religious taboos regarding the sexual activities of the parents is really what brought the public school system down.


There is something ugly about the determination to quash religion that is animates the enlightened. Religion as quaint customs on Sunday may be OK, but those other people who think the awful way they do ought not be allowed to teach children {check}, provide adoption services {check}, provide charity {check} or do anything else by which they may live their faith through their lives and work.


And here it is. The apocalyptic, “our lifestyle is under attack” panic alarm. Grade-A sign of “they’re all out to kill our religion” paranoia. Quashing religion! You hear that, you intolerant liberals? Disagreeing publicly with the actions of a religiously-affiliated institution is like shooting religion in the face! How dare you attack them by disagreeing so— so— openly!


People have rights that go beyond the individual. They have a right of association. They have a right to live by a faith. And the practical consequences for the rest of us, when we respect that right and uphold it, are on the whole salutary.


This is meaningless without context. I do not feel I am similarly benefitted when I respect the right of the KKK to exist as I am when respect the right of Buddhists. One is to be viewed with distaste and a watchful eye and the other as a part of the world I don’t know much about but am interested to learn. Simply repeating over and over again that religious people have the right to be bigoted does nothing to convince me that it’s a moral or ethical viewpoint to have.


Swallow your outrage, step back, take a deep breath, and practice some tolerance…Freedom of religion is on the line, and when we have our thinking caps on straight, we are friends of liberty.


And this liberty is best expressed in keeping silent when an intolerant viewpoint results in removing a child from a superior education environment? No one advocated quashing religion; it’s such a crazy random happenstance than the only one asking for anyone to “swallow” their beliefs - is you.

129 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:28:47pm

re: #97 stevemcg

Holy shit. Should I take this point by point? First of all, the quality of education was never implied in any post. From the very start, it looks like you’re trying to inject your agenda.
All schools ultimately have a curriculum about how life should be lived. AND public schools are in fact allowed to make rules. That’s what school boards do. There is no such thing as the “exact opposite of the school’s story line” (as if there was such a thing in the first place.) As previously noted, and I can bear witness in my daughter’s case children of other religions attend Catholic School. She has a Muslim classmate, two whose parents are divorced, one whose mother has remarried. That’s not quite exact opposite to the school’s “story line”.
How about some passages previously quoted? “And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God” Isn’t that part of the story line? Who here is trying to quash religion? If anything, people here seem shocked that a child cannot receive a Catholic education, instead of delighting in that child’s rejection. Freedom of association is not under attack, freedomn of religion is not under attack. Nobody here has said this should be against the law. Just because we call the priest an asshole doesn’t mean we are trying to take away his rights.
The charge of moral error is no different than the charge of wicked intentions.

Human reason has its limits. People can, and do, miscalculate in the sphere of morals. That is why the two charges are very different.

Oh, and you miss the point. This child cannot receive a Catholic education because if the school is made to buckle under and toe the secular line, the education it would deliver, if it conformed rather than just sigh and close shop altogether, wouldn’t be Catholic.

As to nobody saying it should be against the law, the law has already weighed in with all its majesty and forced Catholic charities in DC to shutter their doors as adoption agencies. Catholic charities in DC must abandon the practice of offering health coverage to its employees, by law, because on principle, Catholic institutions will not and cannot recognize, in deed or in word, homosexual couples with a State-issued marriage license as “married”.

This death of a thousand cuts is several cuts along.

130 lostlakehiker  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:30:48pm

re: #128 torrentprime

This really shows the victim complex of the modern right; it’s a living breathing example of victimhood and paranoia.


And this liberty is best expressed in keeping silent when an intolerant viewpoint results in removing a child from a superior education environment? No one advocated quashing religion; it’s such a crazy random happenstance than the only one asking for anyone to “swallow” their beliefs - is you.

Ah, but it’s not “us” I’m defending. It’s “them”.

131 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:36:18pm

This one gets a solo, because it’s the worst, most self-pitying lie in the whole batch, and it needs special attention:
re: #80 lostlakehiker


Religion as quaint customs on Sunday may be OK, but those other people who think the awful way they do ought not be allowed to teach children {check}, provide adoption services {check}, provide charity {check} or do anything else by which they may live their faith through their lives and work.

No one, and I mean no one, closed the Massachusetts adoption agencies or closed any charity institutions. In each case, most egregiously the MA case, the religious institution made the decision that the discrimination was more important than the service they provided. Period. That’s all there is to it. Faced with state rules on what types of discrimination was and was not legal, they chose not to operate a business in that climate, in a climate that did not protect their bigotry as it had in the past, and they closed their doors.
They decided that they would rather do no good at all if that meant, in the adoption case, ever possibly placing a child with a gay couple. They chose to place their religious obligations over the good their good works would do. They chose that. No one forced them to do anything. Catholic Charities in D.C. just cut off all future employees from exercising spousal benefits for fear they may one day be forced to offer those insurance bennies to a gay spouse. They chose - no one made them - they chose to help their employees less rather than run the risk of helping a gay one.
Their choice, each and every time.

132 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:36:57pm

“Folks: It’s time to evolve ideas. You know, evolution didn’t end with us growing thumbs. You do know that, right? Didn’t end there. We’re at the point, now, where we’re going to have to evolve ideas. The reason the world is so fucked up is we’re undergoing evolution. And the reason our institutions, our traditional religions, are all crumbling, is because they’re no longer relevant. They’re no longer relevant.”

-Bill Hicks, comedian
/honestly, he was a comedian

133 Jack Burton  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:38:19pm

re: #132 Slumbering Behemoth

He faked his death and became Alex Jones.

/TROOF!

134 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:43:30pm

re: #130 lostlakehiker

Ah, but it’s not “us” I’m defending. It’s “them”.

And so the belief that religious-based discrimination should predominate in secular matters should be defended from criticism, because to even oppose it would somehow make us tyrants? And, again, you’re not defending them because they are not under attack. You are attempting to shush criticism of them, not throwing yourself on a grenade to protect a nearby gaggle of nuns.
What part of “them” is so fragile that making disapproving sounds when they discriminate is such a threat to their way of existence? You’re not protecting liberty; you’re asking those who disagree to stay silent to protect a sense of unanimity in those who agree. Toughen up!

135 wee fury  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:44:13pm

Using a child to make a political statement is wrong.

The Catholic school is a private institution. In that private institution the child will be taught that homosexuality is a sin. It will teach that homosexual couples cannot be married.

Based on that fact alone, I cannot fathom why a homosexual couple would want to send their child to a school where that would be taught.

I do not see how a child could reconcile seeing: two good, loving same sex parents with the concept that they are sinners.

136 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:45:30pm

re: #133 ArchangelMichael

OMG! It’s twoo, it’s twoo.

/facial recognition software FAIL

137 torrentprime  Mon, Mar 8, 2010 11:51:43pm

re: #135 wee fury


The Catholic school is a private institution. In that private institution the child will be taught that homosexuality is a sin. It will teach that homosexual couples cannot be married.
Based on that fact alone, I cannot fathom why a homosexual couple would want to send their child to a school where that would be taught.

I went to Catholic school all the way K-8 and a silly prep school for high school , and I had mandatory Catholic class each and every year of my life until I went to college. Until I got to college and met some fundamentalists as well as orthodox Catholics from back east, I never even knew that Catholics had a problem with gay people. It was never part of my Left Coast Catholic education. My Catholic upbringing was long on joy and short on guilt (and that was 20 years ago); if Boulder is anywhere near as liberal as people say, I wouldn’t be surprised if very little of the religious instruction dwells on how bad the gay is. The parents probably didn’t expect anything of the kind.

138 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 12:28:21am

When I read about this Sunday, the article said that one of the priests, during Mass, stated something to the effect that the Catholics in the audience (several of the protesters came into the church to celebrate Mass) knew why the school held this position. I probably would have had a hand waving in the air, demanding to hear the explanation first hand. Because I can’t imagine what it would be. I’m not aware of anything in Catholic doctrine in particular, or Christian doctrine in general, that justifies a decision like this. I would have liked to have heard an exposition on the doctrinal underpinnings of this decision put before the flock, with particular emphasis on how a child should be punished for his or her parent’s behavior.

A resoundingly poor decision, and even worse execution.

139 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 12:31:18am

re: #135 wee fury

Using a child to make a political statement is wrong.

The Catholic school is a private institution. In that private institution the child will be taught that homosexuality is a sin. It will teach that homosexual couples cannot be married.

Based on that fact alone, I cannot fathom why a homosexual couple would want to send their child to a school where that would be taught.

I do not see how a child could reconcile seeing: two good, loving same sex parents with the concept that they are sinners.

Those are valid points, but they are different from the central issue, which seems to me to be that the child is being punished for the behavior of her parents. I don’t see where the justification for this lies in church doctrine.

140 torrentprime  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 12:34:59am

re: #135 wee fury

Using a child to make a political statement is wrong.


I agree for the Catholics to use the child this way is unconscionable.

You did mean the school, right? You weren’t criticizing the parents for “making a political statement”? They chose a local school for their child, something as innocent and ordinary as that. To assume it was motivated by politics buys into the frame that gays have kids as props or to change society, not because they love them and want to raise a family.

141 ryannon  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 3:49:19am

re: #6 Irenicum

I saw this earlier tonight. I was disgusted then. I’m disgusted now. Children should never be used as pawns in a political fight. Jesus said suffer (allow) the little children. Obviously they seem to have forgotten that passage.

No, just too stupid to understand it.

142 TampaKnight  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 3:53:12am

My Catholic parish had a youth group, and in our group we had a fairly openly gay kid. No one cared, bothered him, or even mentioned it. I guess it varied parish to parish.

143 Dad O' Blondes  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 5:01:09am

I would imagine that Boulder, CO has plenty of very fine public schools
— schools which might even welcome the unique parenting situation this child comes from. And because those schools are “public” — they are taxpayer supported (free) and steeped in the secularisim which makes religious and lifestyle tolerance a notable feature of life in today’s America.

I think it would open doors here to ponder the wisdom — and maybe even the motives — of two lesbians who have a preschool child and for whom the educational choice they make is to “pay tuition” to a religious institution which opposes their lifestyle choice.

Given these circumstances and realities, how does sending this young child, a girl, to this Catholic school benefit her?

Jus’ asking, as they say…

A reminder about the nature of “private” education here in the good ol USA: millions of prospective students (pre-schoolers, elementary schoolers, high schoolers, college-age, and graduate level) seek entry to all kinds of private schools every year. And the vast majority are denied admission.

.

144 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 5:47:03am

re: #143 Dad O’ Blondes

I would imagine that Boulder, CO has plenty of very fine public schools
— schools which might even welcome the unique parenting situation this child comes from. And because those schools are “public” — they are taxpayer supported (free) and steeped in the secularisim which makes religious and lifestyle tolerance a notable feature of life in today’s America.

I think it would open doors here to ponder the wisdom — and maybe even the motives — of two lesbians who have a preschool child and for whom the educational choice they make is to “pay tuition” to a religious institution which opposes their lifestyle choice.

Given these circumstances and realities, how does sending this young child, a girl, to this Catholic school benefit her?

Jus’ asking, as they say…

A reminder about the nature of “private” education here in the good ol USA: millions of prospective students (pre-schoolers, elementary schoolers, high schoolers, college-age, and graduate level) seek entry to all kinds of private schools every year. And the vast majority are denied admission.

.

All of this has been addressed upthread. None of it absolves the school from criticism in this matter. Their actions are misguided an odious.

145 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 5:51:23am

re: #143 Dad O’ Blondes

It’s not a unique situation, also.

146 RogueOne  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 6:04:35am

re: #140 torrentprime

I agree for the Catholics to use the child this way is unconscionable.

You did mean the school, right? You weren’t criticizing the parents for “making a political statement”? They chose a local school for their child, something as innocent and ordinary as that. To assume it was motivated by politics buys into the frame that gays have kids as props or to change society, not because they love them and want to raise a family.

I’m late to the thread but this issue is a bit of a pet-peeve of mine. Without suggesting the kids parents wanted to try to place the kid in a catholic school out of nefarious reasoning, you still have to ask the question “wtf were they thinking?”. Why would you want to send that child to a school that is going to teach it that his/her parents are going to hell because they love each other?.

147 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 6:06:37am

re: #146 RogueOne

Catholics don’t generally teach that, though. They really don’t. The Catholics do a lot better with the gay— and the other faiths, too— than a lot of other Christian denominations.

And Catholic schools are very low on the evangelizing. Catholicism is a works creed, as in, salvation— and conversion— is achieved through works. It’s one of the most respectable things about them.

148 iceweasel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 6:11:12am

re: #147 Obdicut

Catholics don’t generally teach that, though. They really don’t. The Catholics do a lot better with the gay— and the other faiths, too— than a lot of other Christian denominations.

And Catholic schools are very low on the evangelizing. Catholicism is a works creed, as in, salvation— and conversion— is achieved through works. It’s one of the most respectable things about them.

Yep. Works. And conversion requires partaking in the sacraments. Not easy, and you can’t do it on the spot.
And being Catholic is all about continuing to take part in the sacraments.
It isn’t a one stop shop.

149 Randall Gross  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 6:21:13am

I wouldn’t punish my child by sending them to catholic school. Where I grew up the kids who attended Catholic School were all disturbed or had trouble stamped on their forehead as evidenced by their high rate of incarceration and suicide in later life. Why subject your child to that?

That said, I consider the decision to be open bigotry. Replace “Gay” with “Black” or “Hindu” or “left-handed” and ask yourself how this would sit.

150 First As Tragedy, Then As Farce  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 8:13:04am

re: #42 Gus 802

Take two…

Clearly this is a political decision and not one based on ethics, morals or what they would call faith. Archbishop Charles Chaput is a signatory to the so-con and far-right inspired Manhattan Declaration. His involvement is described in an oddly titled piece called, Archbishop Chaput: Manhattan Declaration will ‘galvanize’ Christians in difficult times:

I detect a little bit of Teabaggery in his words.

Oh, and here’s his Facebook page.

Galvanization was invented in Paris, France (I kid you not). That’s where they do fruit fly research. Clearly this Chaput guy is trying to surreptitiously turn Catholics into socialist out-of-control entomologists.

151 Mike in Boulder  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 8:53:49am

It is easy to bash Boulder on this one but a lot of the parents with children at the school do oppose this. Unfortunately, the damage to this family and the their child has already been done.

152 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:25:55am

Sad to put the child in this situation. We know nothing about the ‘mothers’ here. Are they activists? Was this a thought out political agenda? I’d like to know if the two women were practicing Catholics. Until I know more about them, I can’t support them.

The women are adults and I’m sure very aware of what may happen. They also understand it would put their child at the crux of the debate. Although the child is not the issue here, the homosexuality is the issue. And the church has a principled stance against that act and other issues on moral grounds. Granted there are probably other moral grounds too that could be taken against other parents for other issues if they were known.

The parents of this child hold the responsibility to protect this child. I certainly hope that the only reason they wanted their child to go to this school was to get a well rounded spiritually based education. But so far it’s about attacking the church. I can’t see why the church is at fault here according to this story.

153 Varek Raith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:26:57am

re: #152 Super-ego

So…you’d blame the kid?
Huh?

154 Varek Raith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:27:41am

re: #153 Varek Raith

So…you’d blame the kid?
Huh?

Er, fail Varek, fail.

So, it’s ok to punish the kid?

155 jaunte  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:28:48am

re: #152 Super-ego

The child hasn’t broken any rules.

156 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:31:14am

re: #151 Mike in Boulder

It is easy to bash Boulder on this one but a lot of the parents with children at the school do oppose this. Unfortunately, the damage to this family and the their child has already been done.

I’m afraid you’re right. Kids being what they are - which is often wretchedly mean to one another - this girl is now stigmatized, and will be the target of unbridled cruelty in short order.

157 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:32:00am

re: #152 Super-ego

There is no reason for any couple to suspect a Catholic school of being bigoted against them, because Catholics usually manage to be very catholic about who they allow into their schools, including people of other faiths, and people who’s marital status the Church disapproves of.

158 SixDegrees  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:34:40am

re: #155 jaunte

The child hasn’t broken any rules.

Correct. Punishing the child for the parent’s actions is unconscionable. Like I said earlier: I’d love to hear school officials give me their doctrinal reasoning behind this action.

Do they also toss out kids whose parents have had a divorce? Or who have remarried? In the eyes of the Church, these are sins of equal gravity to being homosexual. (I think both positions are wrong, by the way, but consistency would be appreciated.)

159 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:39:17am

re: #154 Varek Raith

No. But it’s playing out that way isn’t it. The child is innocent.

160 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:44:04am

re: #158 SixDegrees

(I think both positions are wrong, by the way, but consistency would be appreciated.)


This is exactly where the rubber meets the road. Consistency is crucial in any religion. Man controls religion and man is at times inconsistent, thus religion seems flawed.

161 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:45:06am

Late to the thread…

Look, the fact is, a parish school has the right and the duty to promote the values and beliefs of that parish’s church. Whether you, or I, or anybody outside that church likes those beliefs or not. Transmission of their own faith to the parish’s children is THE reason for a parish school’s existence.

In my own experience with Catholic schools (K-12), teachers and parents were required to avoid living in open public opposition to RC teachings. The system might hire a divorced teacher, but if he/she got remarried, then he/she could not stay. A parish school is often a very tight community, in which the kids know the families of all their classmates quite well. Parents are involved, and are expected to be good examples. Because of this, when you say “let the little girl attend the school,” you are ALSO saying “the school should promote homosexual couples as perfectly ok, regardless of the church’s belief, and show this by example to children starting at age four.”

You can object to those beliefs all you want to. Criticize publicly. Picket. Write to the parish. Write to the diocese. Write to the Vatican. Go for it. (Who knows? In a century or two, they might even come around.) But objecting to the idea of a religious-based school actually promoting its own religion is fairly ridiculous.

If you genuinely think that religious belief should only apply inside the church building for an hour or so on Sundays, and not be involved in every aspect of a person’s life, then you do not understand the nature of religion.

162 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:47:12am

re: #71 iceweasel

SFZed, we were talking about this story recently on a thread, and you came up because of a question I had— I thought it was fairly standard for Catholic schools to accept students that weren’t themselves Catholic, or whose parents weren’t Catholic. My Catholic (HS) was like that, anyway. Is that not so? Or, why would this be different? (I also mentioned some of the cases you just did.)

All the Catholic schools I know accept non-Catholic students.

163 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:52:20am

re: #157 Obdicut

There is no reason for any couple to suspect a Catholic school of being bigoted against them, because Catholics usually manage to be very catholic about who they allow into their schools, including people of other faiths, and people who’s marital status the Church disapproves of.

That is why I would like to know more about the women. There are plenty of private schools that aren’t religious. And there are plenty gay couples that try to make an issue for their cause. I would love to support the women if the child’s interest was at the heart of their search into this school. Scrutinizing both parties is fair game.

And as I stated in my first post. I am sure “there are probably other moral grounds too that could be taken against other parents for other issues if they were known.”

It boils down to consistency.

164 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:52:21am

re: #161 lurking faith

I don’t think you followed the conversation here very well at all.

165 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:53:18am

re: #130 lostlakehiker

Ah, but it’s not “us” I’m defending. It’s “them”.

I am them. I am an educator in a Catholic school.

166 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:54:08am

re: #163 Super-ego

I’m sorry, you’re rather transparent.

It should not in the least bit matter what the mothers are like. They do not deserve ‘scrutiny’ after having been discriminated against. What exactly did they do that makes you want to scrutinize them, again? Oh yeah, they tried to enroll their child in a school.

167 FullRoller  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 9:56:51am

re: #161 lurking faith

Late to the thread…

Look, the fact is, a parish school has the right and the duty to promote the values and beliefs of that parish’s church. Whether you, or I, or anybody outside that church likes those beliefs or not. Transmission of their own faith to the parish’s children is THE reason for a parish school’s existence.

In my own experience with Catholic schools (K-12), teachers and parents were required to avoid living in open public opposition to RC teachings. The system might hire a divorced teacher, but if he/she got remarried, then he/she could not stay. A parish school is often a very tight community, in which the kids know the families of all their classmates quite well. Parents are involved, and are expected to be good examples. Because of this, when you say “let the little girl attend the school,” you are ALSO saying “the school should promote homosexual couples as perfectly ok, regardless of the church’s belief, and show this by example to children starting at age four.”

You can object to those beliefs all you want to. Criticize publicly. Picket. Write to the parish. Write to the diocese. Write to the Vatican. Go for it. (Who knows? In a century or two, they might even come around.) But objecting to the idea of a religious-based school actually promoting its own religion is fairly ridiculous.

If you genuinely think that religious belief should only apply inside the church building for an hour or so on Sundays, and not be involved in every aspect of a person’s life, then you do not understand the nature of religion.

Agreed… I’m still trying to figure out why these two women want their child to be schooled in an environment where they most certainly be taught that homosexual relationships are evil?

Or, as I expect are they simply looking for a confrontation?

168 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:00:09am

re: #146 RogueOne

I’m late to the thread but this issue is a bit of a pet-peeve of mine. Without suggesting the kids parents wanted to try to place the kid in a catholic school out of nefarious reasoning, you still have to ask the question “wtf were they thinking?”. Why would you want to send that child to a school that is going to teach it that his/her parents are going to hell because they love each other?.

The Church does not teach that, and many gay Catholics want their children to have a Catholic education, despite issues they may personally have with the Church.

169 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:00:36am

re: #167 FullRoller

Agreed… I’m still trying to figure out why these two women want their child to be schooled in an environment where they most certainly be taught that homosexual relationships are evil?

Or, as I expect are they simply looking for a confrontation?

Oh, that’s rich.

So the parents are to blame?

Unbelievable how you people will go to any lengths to rationalize homophobia.

170 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:02:48am

re: #167 FullRoller

Agreed… I’m still trying to figure out why these two women want their child to be schooled in an environment where they most certainly be taught that homosexual relationships are evil?

Or, as I expect are they simply looking for a confrontation?

I know a lot of gay Catholics. Apparently, you don’t. Have fun disapproving of the imaginary gay activists in your mind.

171 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:05:08am

re: #164 Obdicut

I was attempting to point out an aspect that I did not see anybody mention above, which is: in a religious school, where the parents are highly involved, and a specific belief system is supposed to be transmitted to the children, it does indeed matter if the parents of a student behave publicly in a way that undermines that belief system.

This does not mean that I like the decision. But I do understand it.

172 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:06:06am

re: #171 lurking faith

That’s not how Catholic schools work. Why are you ignoring that?

173 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:06:33am

By the way, I went to Catholic schools, and was NEVER taught that homosexual relationships were “evil.” That’s complete crap.

174 Lidane  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:06:48am

re: #172 Obdicut

That’s not how Catholic schools work. Why are you ignoring that?

Because it doesn’t fit the narrative they have in their head.

175 FullRoller  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:07:03am

re: #169 Charles

Oh, that’s rich.

So the parents are to blame?

Unbelievable how you people will go to any lengths to rationalize homophobia.

Never said that, you are using your imagination again. I simply wonder why they would do that, and cannot find a single logical reason. Why would you want to put your impressionable child in that kind of atmosphere? Experience has shown that those who do that are quite often “looking for a conflict”

176 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:08:27am

re: #152 Super-ego

Michale Savage entertains this kind of mentality of blaming the parents in regard to the child molestations allegations. You’re in good company.
/

177 Lidane  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:08:39am

re: #175 FullRoller

Never said that, you are using your imagination again. I simply wonder why they would do that, and cannot find a single logical reason. Why would you want to put your impressionable child in that kind of atmosphere? Experience has shown that those who do that are quite often “looking for a conflict”

You clearly don’t know how Catholic schools work. You’re expecting them to be evangelical and full of hellfire and brimstone, and that’s simply not the case.

178 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:09:54am

re: #166 Obdicut

I’m sorry, you’re rather transparent.

It should not in the least bit matter what the mothers are like. They do not deserve ‘scrutiny’ after having been discriminated against. What exactly did they do that makes you want to scrutinize them, again? Oh yeah, they tried to enroll their child in a school.

Yes, I am.

So, if it turns out that the mothers are members of a homosexual activists group who just met two weeks ago to discuss their next political move and it turns out that move was to test a churches stance on same-sex parents. And coincidentally they were looking at sending their child to a Catholic school and they were willing to put that child through that because they felt so strongly about their cause.

Far fetched, but it would be relevant.

I’m sure it’s not the case, but parents put their kids through lots of crap to make a point. Selfishness does that.

179 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:11:07am

re: #178 Super-ego

Maybe that girl is the real Barack Obama. Where’s the birth certificate?

180 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:11:32am

re: #175 FullRoller

Never said that, you are using your imagination again. I simply wonder why they would do that, and cannot find a single logical reason. Why would you want to put your impressionable child in that kind of atmosphere? Experience has shown that those who do that are quite often “looking for a conflict”

It’s not surprising to find you defending this. You’re a creationist and a climate change denier, who’s defended Fox News, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin.

It’s all part of the package.

181 Lidane  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:11:46am

re: #178 Super-ego

That’s quite a fantasy you’ve got going there.

I suppose it’s too difficult for you to believe that there are not only gay Catholics out there, but that some of them might even want a Catholic education for their kids.

182 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:12:21am

re: #168 SanFranciscoZionist

The Church does not teach that, and many gay Catholics want their children to have a Catholic education, despite issues they may personally have with the Church.


Unless I was taught completely incorrectly, and unless the teachings have changed , the Church does not consider homosexuals themselves to be evil, but does condemn homosexual actvity as sinful.

Perhaps I should add: I don’t agree with FullRoller that the parents were looking for a confrontation. Many Catholic parishes nowadays omit any teachings against homosexual behavior and I would not expect such a parish to exclude children of homosexual or divorced/remarried couples.

183 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:12:51am

re: #178 Super-ego

Yes, I am.

So, if it turns out that the mothers are members of a homosexual activists group who just met two weeks ago to discuss their next political move and it turns out that move was to test a churches stance on same-sex parents. And coincidentally they were looking at sending their child to a Catholic school and they were willing to put that child through that because they felt so strongly about their cause.

Far fetched, but it would be relevant.

I’m sure it’s not the case, but parents put their kids through lots of crap to make a point. Selfishness does that.

Wow. Talk about a freaking deranged fantasy.

How far are you going to take this effort to blame the parents because they want the best education for their child?

The homophobia just reeks.

184 FullRoller  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:14:30am

re: #177 Lidane

You clearly don’t know how Catholic schools work. You’re expecting them to be evangelical and full of hellfire and brimstone, and that’s simply not the case.

Nope, just keenly aware of the religious and conservative atmosphere that would prevail in anyreligion based schooling.

185 Lidane  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:15:39am

re: #184 FullRoller

Like I said— you clearly don’t know anything about how Catholic schools work.

186 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:16:04am

re: #178 Super-ego

Yes, I am.

So, if it turns out that the mothers are members of a homosexual activists group who just met two weeks ago to discuss their next political move and it turns out that move was to test a churches stance on same-sex parents. And coincidentally they were looking at sending their child to a Catholic school and they were willing to put that child through that because they felt so strongly about their cause.

Far fetched, but it would be relevant.

I’m sure it’s not the case, but parents put their kids through lots of crap to make a point. Selfishness does that.

Flip the scenario around: Turns out the parents just want to give their kid the best education possible and lo and behold, the best education available in their area is…a Catholic school. Then what? Would you change your tune?

187 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:16:35am

re: #172 Obdicut

That’s not how Catholic schools work. Why are you ignoring that?


The one I went to did work that way. If that was not normal, I did not know it.
Also, I am a fallen-away Catholic, with no kids, and apparently I am hopelessly out of touch.

188 FullRoller  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:18:02am

Amazing how theHomophobe stick comes out whenever anyone even slightly disagrees with a certain view…..

A lot like the raaaaciiiist! cry used against anyone daring to oppose Obama..

189 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:22:37am

re: #188 FullRoller

You are the one accusing the parents of actively seeking a confrontation with the RCC. Can’t you just accept that Catholic schools, dollar for dollar, are still one of the best ways to educate a child?

Quit your whining.

190 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:22:53am

re: #183 Charles

Wow. Talk about a freaking deranged fantasy.

How far are you going to take this effort to blame the parents because they want the best education for their child?

The homophobia just reeks.

My greatest hope is that’s the case, Charles.

191 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:23:12am

re: #177 Lidane

You clearly don’t know how Catholic schools work. You’re expecting them to be evangelical and full of hellfire and brimstone, and that’s simply not the case.

Far, far from, and MANY gay Catholics put their children in Catholic schooling. “Looking at the parents” implies that this is an odd decision. It’s not. Plenty of Catholic schools have gay parents who are deeply involved with their parishes and their children’s religious education.

192 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:24:22am

re: #178 Super-ego

Yes, I am.

So, if it turns out that the mothers are members of a homosexual activists group who just met two weeks ago to discuss their next political move and it turns out that move was to test a churches stance on same-sex parents. And coincidentally they were looking at sending their child to a Catholic school and they were willing to put that child through that because they felt so strongly about their cause.

Far fetched, but it would be relevant.

I’m sure it’s not the case, but parents put their kids through lots of crap to make a point. Selfishness does that.

That’s a very interesting pretend story. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

193 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:26:55am

re: #192 SanFranciscoZionist

That’s a very interesting pretend story. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

…but, but, but…the parents are teh ghey!!!!111111

/

194 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:26:57am

re: #182 lurking faith

Unless I was taught completely incorrectly, and unless the teachings have changed , the Church does not consider homosexuals themselves to be evil, but does condemn homosexual actvity as sinful.

Perhaps I should add: I don’t agree with FullRoller that the parents were looking for a confrontation. Many Catholic parishes nowadays omit any teachings against homosexual behavior and I would not expect such a parish to exclude children of homosexual or divorced/remarried couples.

‘The Church does not teach that’ was in response to RogueOne’s question about why parents would sent their child to a school that would teach that their parents were going to hell for loving one another.

The Church does not teach that.

195 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:27:47am

re: #184 FullRoller

Nope, just keenly aware of the religious and conservative atmosphere that would prevail in anyreligion based schooling.

In other words, don’t actually understand the Catholic community, don’t care, just assume this is normal? It’s not.

196 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:28:22am

re: #186 eclectic infidel

Flip the scenario around: Turns out the parents just want to give their kid the best education possible and lo and behold, the best education available in their area is…a Catholic school. Then what? Would you change your tune?

Or that the parents want their child to receive a religious education?

197 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:33:22am

re: #186 eclectic infidel

Flip the scenario around: Turns out the parents just want to give their kid the best education possible and lo and behold, the best education available in their area is…a Catholic school. Then what? Would you change your tune?

That’s irrelevant. The parents still put their child in the middle of a political debate. Doesn’t seem worth it to me.

Reminds me of the kid here in Texas whose parents wouldn’t cut his pony tail off. Which went against the school rules. The kid had to be put through all kinds of crap because his parents wanted to buck the rules. Ridiculous.

198 jaunte  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:34:31am

re: #171 lurking faith

I was attempting to point out an aspect that I did not see anybody mention above, which is: in a religious school, where the parents are highly involved, and a specific belief system is supposed to be transmitted to the children, it does indeed matter if the parents of a student behave publicly in a way that undermines that belief system.


This has been a problem in the past when the transmitted belief system included the belief that other defined groups should be treated as inferior and evil. en.wikipedia.org

199 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:35:22am

re: #192 SanFranciscoZionist

That’s a very interesting pretend story. Do you have evidence that this is the case?

Oh, brother.

It is a pretend story.

200 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:38:46am

re: #197 Super-ego

It’s not irrelevant. You’re just being an asshole.

201 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:40:29am

re: #197 Super-ego

You know, assholes like you have to make it political in order to justify something that is difficult for you to grasp. You’re pathetic.

202 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:40:52am

re: #194 SanFranciscoZionist

‘The Church does not teach that’ was in response to RogueOne’s question about why parents would sent their child to a school that would teach that their parents were going to hell for loving one another.

The Church does not teach that.

Yes, I saw. And you’re correct. But if you take euphemistic language (love vs. sexual activity) and combine it with a child’s unsophisticated thoughts on sin and hell, a child might misunderstand teachings on the issue in just such a way. If the issue comes up at all. Which just might happen in a school which is excluding this child.

No, I don’t like it.

203 Eclectic Infidel  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:42:21am

re: #196 SanFranciscoZionist

Or that the parents want their child to receive a religious education?

That too.

I think I’m done engaging the knuckle-draggers though. Insofar as this thread is concerned, color me gone. Ciao.

204 lurking faith  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:46:35am

re: #198 jaunte

This has been a problem in the past when the transmitted belief system included the belief that other defined groups should be treated as inferior and evil. [Link: en.wikipedia.org…]


And not just in the past.

Of course it’s a problem. But how do you deal with the problem and maintain freedom of religion? Is there a solution that would not require closing all religious schools? If there is, I’m not clever enough to invent it.

205 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:46:50am

re: #201 eclectic infidel

You know, assholes like you have to make it political in order to justify something that is difficult for you to grasp. You’re pathetic.

eclectic, I grasp it fine. And I did not make this issue political.

I’m not sure why you’re calling names. Seems a bit uncivil.

206 Charles Johnson  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:47:04am

re: #197 Super-ego

That’s irrelevant. The parents still put their child in the middle of a political debate. Doesn’t seem worth it to me.

Bullshit. The parents just wanted to send their child to school. The “political debate” (a strange name for an eruption of homophobic hatred) happened when the school refused to admit the child.

And please note that this child has ALREADY been going to the school. The nonsense started when the school barred the child from being readmitted.

207 FullRoller  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:48:01am

re: #195 SanFranciscoZionist

In other words, don’t actually understand the Catholic community, don’t care, just assume this is normal? It’s not.

No, there are no

other words

I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. No hidden meanings in any of my postings. I have been exposed to religious based education in past and the fact is, there is a slant there. Based on the religion of course.

208 jaunte  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:49:11am

re: #204 lurking faith

I’m sure there are civil laws that prevent one individual from being punished for the transgressions of another (even perceived transgressions).

209 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 10:49:30am

re: #199 Super-ego

Oh, brother.

It is a pretend story.

OK. I will answer you—because the Church should turn away no child whose parents wish for them to receive a Catholic education, it wouldn’t matter.

210 Super-ego  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 11:07:59am

re: #206 Charles

And please note that this child has ALREADY been going to the school. The nonsense started when the school barred the child from being readmitted.

I noted that when I read it and I’d forgotten to bring it up. It is actually the most important word (readmit) in the story. So, obviously there is more to the story. If it turns out that the two women were known lesbians during the child’s first term at the school, which in all likelihood should be the case, I will recant my previous post about them having an agenda and putting their child through this. I would then support the wrath upon the church at this point.

If it wasn’t known before, then I would still blame them bringing it up now, knowing the repercussions.

211 Absalom, Absalom, Obdicut  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 11:53:57am

re: #210 Super-ego

“Haha, we’re gay! We’ve been lesbians all this time”

“Oh no! You tricked us! Tricked us into treating you decently! That’s just like you gays!”

212 campisi  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 3:04:47pm

Anyone care to answer why these two mothers want to send their child to a school that will teach them that what the child’s mothers are doing in their daily lives is WRONG? I envision a big, fat, ACLU lawsuit brewing once the child became enrolled by the two mothers, maybe the church sensed the same thing.

213 wrenchwench  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 3:16:17pm

re: #212 campisi

What the heck are you doing here anyway?

185 campisi 8/05/2009 5:21:20 pm PDT

It must be just me but I no longer find myself interested by Charles’ blog. Just a little sick of reading about the ‘nirfers’ and the ID’ers. I find myself coming to LGF strictly for the link viewer nowadays. C’mon Charles - mix it up a little!

214 Fortitudine  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 6:08:16pm

re: #212 campisi

Anyone care to answer why these two mothers want to send their child to a school that will teach them that what the child’s mothers are doing in their daily lives is WRONG? I envision a big, fat, ACLU lawsuit brewing once the child became enrolled by the two mothers, maybe the church sensed the same thing.

I have to agree with this. My very left-wing, lapsed-and-now-terribly-anti-Catholic older sister insisted on sending my niece to a private (Catholic) school. The poor kid would come home and repeat something her teachers had said only to have Sis tear into her.

I’m still waiting to see how many years of therapy that girl’s going to need.

215 Dad O' Blondes  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 8:10:34pm

“Bigotry On Parade”

This was a late 1970’s/early 1980’s headline of a New York Times editorial published on March 17 of the year referenced — Saint Patrick’s Day. The editorial opinion obviously referenced the gathered host on Fifth Avenue in midtown Manhattan, at the commencement the largest parade in the free world, second only in size, scale and attendance to the May Day Parade in Moscow, Russia ( in those days of the real Soviet Union ).

The bigotry referenced was the exclusion of “ILGO” from the line of march, by the Order of Hibernians, the keepers and managers of the parade. ILGO being the “Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization”.

I haven’t spent a dime on the New York Times ever since.

See you at Mass on Sunday — and yes, I’ll be marching with the Clare men next Wednesday, prior to attending the all-male Friendly Sons Of St. Patrick black tie gala.

.

216 Dad O' Blondes  Tue, Mar 9, 2010 8:40:31pm

re: #161 lurking faith

Late to the thread…

Look, the fact is, a parish school has the right and the duty to promote the values and beliefs of that parish’s church. Whether you, or I, or anybody outside that church likes those beliefs or not. Transmission of their own faith to the parish’s children is THE reason for a parish school’s existence.

In my own experience with Catholic schools (K-12), teachers and parents were required to avoid living in open public opposition to RC teachings. The system might hire a divorced teacher, but if he/she got remarried, then he/she could not stay. A parish school is often a very tight community, in which the kids know the families of all their classmates quite well. Parents are involved, and are expected to be good examples. Because of this, when you say “let the little girl attend the school,” you are ALSO saying “the school should promote homosexual couples as perfectly ok, regardless of the church’s belief, and show this by example to children starting at age four.”

You can object to those beliefs all you want to. Criticize publicly. Picket. Write to the parish. Write to the diocese. Write to the Vatican. Go for it. (Who knows? In a century or two, they might even come around.) But objecting to the idea of a religious-based school actually promoting its own religion is fairly ridiculous.

If you genuinely think that religious belief should only apply inside the church building for an hour or so on Sundays, and not be involved in every aspect of a person’s life, then you do not understand the nature of religion.


The words of reason. Thank you.

.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2021-06-05 2:51 pm PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds Tweet

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app Shop at amazon
as an LGF Associate!
Recent PagesClick to refresh