Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: roo_ster on September 05, 2010, 11:55:16 PM
-
This was the question posted to the usual stacked panel, after a lesbian couple sought to send the child they care for to a school affiliated with a local Anglican Church. And by "stacked" I mean the usual 4:1 or so lefty to righty split. But, this panel included a far-lefty Episcopal gal who has a lawsuit ongoing against the church.
Note, I did not write "Episcopal" church, but "Anglican." That is because this church & school has disaffiliated itself from the Episcopal Church in the US due to the Episcopal Church's decades-long slide from orthodoxy (as the Anglicans see it and relative to broader small-"o" Christian orthodoxy). Matter of fact, the entire Fort Worth diocese voted 80% to 20% to kick the Episcopal church to the curb and hook up with the more-orthodox Anglican Church in North America. Their path to the Archbishop of Canterbury goes through the Prelates in one of the African countries of Nigeria, Rawanda, or another I forget.
I brought all that ^^^ up to illustrate that this is not your run-of-the-mill dead-gospel mainline denomination churches desperately trying to keep up with contemporary leftist / liberal theology.
Of course, immediately after the decision, the couple went to the news media.
The question was chewed over by the panelists and opened up to the newspaper's general blog.
General DMN Blog
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/09/should-a-religi.html
Panel Tilted 45deg to Port
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/08/texas-faith-should-a-religious.html
School in Question:
http://www.sves.org/aboutus.html
ACNA:
http://www.anglicanchurch.net/?/main/page/about#history
One of the pithier comments, foundon the general blog, was, "If the Catholic [sic] schools refuse to enroll their child, perhaps they should try a madrassa - I hear Islam is exceptionally tolerant."
As for my position, it is a private school. There is no right to attend one. End of story, no need to explicate.
-
Every religious school is going to handle that differently, won't they? Some will require that the parents share some set of beliefs or a certain church affiliation. Some will not.
Obviously, homosexual is the new black, so...
-
I for one would love to see the churches dump their 501c(3) shackles. Then they can get back into politics, tell .gov to stick it and speak their minds again.
No the church doesn't have to take a child of a homosexual couple, but they can if they want to. I would give a disclaimer that they teach the whole Bible in this church, i.e. Lev. 20:13, Rom. 1:26-27. I personally think this is a "set up," and the homosexual couple intend to sue, no matter how this turns out. Either they sue over not being able to send their child in there or a discrimination "gay bashing" suit after the child attends. Win/win in their book.
-
I for one would love to see the churches dump their 501c(3) shackles. Then they can get back into politics, tell .gov to stick it and speak their minds again.
Is that even in play here?
As I understand it, 501c(3) status prevents churches from campaigning for or against specific candidates or parties, but they are free to express political opinions or lobby their representatives. Unless, of course, they start spending more on politics than piety.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
-
Having looked into a Christian school or three they pretty much univerally require the parents to sign a statement of faith. If you won't sign it, your kid cannot attend that school. And if you sign it, but openly live in contradiction to that statement, the kid can be expelled.
As a parent you know all of that going in. It's a private school which is under no obligation to educate anyone in particular. Far as I'm concerned it's tough titties for those "parents".
Now, there are some schools that don't require that statmenet of faith. There's a 7th Day Adventist school close to my home. I don't know what they require, but they do not require that you be an Adventist to go there (there's nowhere near enough Adventists in the area to populate the school, so that's more of a survival technique than anything else).
-
Yes, the school should reject that child. I went to public schools for 1-5 grade, and a religious school for 6-8, and then back to public schools for high school. Religious teachings and a religious family atmosphere are a big part of many religious schools. The whole idea is not just to teach them how to read and write (though religious schools often do this far better than government schools), but to also put them in an environment that affirms and strengthens their faith and the faith of the family they were raised in. The school I went to in particular was fairly small, maybe 400 kids in grades 1-8 (though I only went 6-8). It was pretty special too. It was a joint collaboration between a local Catholic church and a local Protestant church (part of the Vineyard). Many of the families of the churches sent their kids to this school, coached teams, tutored students, etc. There were many get togethers between the churches where one would see schoolmates from the other church and so forth. I even went to a summer camp and later was a counselor at that same camp that was run through this school.
Now this is all important because it highlights how much family life, formal education, and religious studies are all tied together in many religious schools. A child with two homosexual guardians would be receiving drastically conflicting ideals from home and from school. It is unlikely the homosexual couple would participate in either participate in the church the school operates though, or share many of the same beliefs that most religious school teachers and clergy, and parents share. The conflict would go both ways. Not only would it be very confusing for the single child to have such contrasting views from different areas of their life, but other school children would also be subjected to those issues, perhaps before their parents are willing to tell them about those things.
One of the big reasons people send their children to religious schools is because they strongly disagree with the type of cultural atmosphere most public school have. If a parent does not want their child to be taught at school that homosexuality is OK, that is their right. And they have the right to send their child to a school that affirms these beliefs. Many modern religious schools exist with separating children from what many religious parents see as cultural rot, as one of their primary goals. Forcing a school to admit students whose guardians play a large role in that very same cultural rot would undermine one of the purposes of religious school, and the choices and beliefs of the other parents.
Edit: After reading the article, I am inclined to think that the two homosexuals in questions chose this school not as a realistic school choice, but with the primary purpose of either intimidating the school to backtrack on their beliefs, or to just make a general media spectacle of Christian schools. I think that they were motivated by radical politics far more than actual concern for the education of the child.
-
Every religious school is going to handle that differently, won't they? Some will require that the parents share some set of beliefs or a certain church affiliation. Some will not.
This.
-
Wow... count this Pagan among those who feel the school has every right to decline enrollment to the student.
And I'd bet this WAS a set-up. Which pisses me off: a child shouldn't be turned into a political pawn...
-
Why would anybody want their child in a school that teaches that their family's entire existence is a sin?
-
Why would anybody want their child in a school that teaches that their family's entire existence is a sin?
Morons or people wary of the public education system.
Personally, I believe private organizations should be free to discriminate as they feel. If you don't want to cater to left handed redheads, that should be your business. Government should obviously never be allowed to do so, obviously. I've never been sure of which part of the Constitution allows the government to forbid denying service in private transactions.
-
Is that even in play here?
As I understand it, 501c(3) status prevents churches from campaigning for or against specific candidates or parties, but they are free to express political opinions or lobby their representatives. Unless, of course, they start spending more on politics than piety.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
In essence, yes. When you hold .gov's hand, you take on all of .gov's restrictions, beliefs and bias. The government will use it's power to bend you to do it's bidding, even if they have to audit you, inspect you, investigate you or suddenly have claims of child abuse you will do as you are told.
-
Wow... count this Pagan among those who feel the school has every right to decline enrollment to the student.
And I'd bet this WAS a set-up. Which pisses me off: a child shouldn't be turned into a political pawn...
Count me as a godless heathen that agrees with you. =D
-
I have GOT to quit skimming. I read this:
Many of the families of the churches sent their kids to this school, coached teams, tutored students, etc.
as:
"Many of the families of the churches sent their kids to this school, coached teams, tortured students, etc." :facepalm:
DD
-
Should a religious school reject a child of divorced parents?
Ultimately they can do whatever they want, but I do think it's silly.
-
i think someone covered it well why send a kid where he will be taught that his/her home environment is a sin? isn't there a episcopal "adam and steve" church school in town?
-
Should a religious school reject a child of divorced parents?
Ultimately they can do whatever they want, but I do think it's silly.
Depends on the circumstances of the divorce, I would imagine.
But yes, the school has and should have the right to refuse the child of parents who are deemed to off from doctrine. Sounds like a set up or excuse to sue in the first place.
-
i think someone covered it well why send a kid where he will be taught that his/her home environment is a sin? isn't there a episcopal "adam and steve" church school in town?
The apocalypse has come early: C&SD agrees with me.
-
I have GOT to quit skimming. I read this:
as:
"Many of the families of the churches sent their kids to this school, coached teams, tortured students, etc." :facepalm:
DD
That's only the Catholics maybe :) .. my Mom and her siblings have a number of stories from their time at the Catholic schools around Missoula in the 50's and 60's. It may not be typical, but it sure put them off religion for good. The education part was fine, but a couple of the nuns were friggin insane.
Back OT, the school should be able to accept or reject whomever applies to them just like any private entity.
-
Should a religious school reject a child of divorced parents?
Ultimately they can do whatever they want, but I do think it's silly.
There are acceptable reasons for divorce, even to hard core fundies. Marital unfaithfullness (e.g. sexual immorality) being the one that was mentioned by Jesus. Other, perhaps less fundie types, will also consider substance abuse, phyiscal abuse, etc as acceptable reasons. Therefore, without a school delving into the reasons for the divorce (which they may or may not) it would be hard to deny the kid admission on that basis. Also considering parent with primary custody is often the "victim" of the unfaithfullness, etc it would pretty aweful to deny a kid admission to a school becuase their non-primary-custodial parent had mis-behaved. Plus, with 40-50% of marriages ending in divorce, even in Evangelical couples, that would really cut down on the tuition basis.
I'd have to say that rather than divorce, a more appropriate heterosexual comparison would be couples in an "open marriage", or swingers. Or single parents that are openly and unapologetically sexually active, whether monogamous or not. Or an active prostitute.
-
http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/mark/mark_10.html
thank you for making me look and learn something
-
I'm kinda torn on this one....
....on one hand, why would an openly gay couple want their child educated in a school that teaches that homosexuality is a sin and that heterosexuality is God's will? Sounds like a set-up to me....
...on the other hand, if this is a private, non-gov't funded school, why should they be prohibited from choosing who they do and do not service...esp. if the choice is based on religious beliefs....
...still on the other hand, maybe the school should accept this child in order to minister to him about spiritual matters and moral behavior...which would include homosexuality as a sin and heterosexuality as God's will....parents may be a loss, but the kid should have a chance....and Christians are supposed to love the sinner yet hate the sin...
....I should have been an octopus.... =|
-
why should they be prohibited from choosing who they do and do not service
I, for one, do not wish to service homosexuals.
-
I, for one, do not wish to service homosexuals.
Mabs will be heartbroken.... :'(
-
>I, for one, do not wish to service homosexuals. <
I don't know about that... I heard about those vids of you... >:D
-
...still on the other hand, maybe the school should accept this child in order to minister to him about spiritual matters and moral behavior...which would include homosexuality as a sin and heterosexuality as God's will....parents may be a loss, but the kid should have a chance....and Christians are supposed to love the sinner yet hate the sin...
That's the best reason I've heard in favor of the school letting the child enroll. The question is, do you really think the two "parents" in question would really let the school try to teach the child that their behavior is wrong? If they're willing to cry afoul to the media over enrollment, do you think they would let it slide if a teacher taught about the passages in the Bible that call homosexuality a sin?
-
That's the best reason I've heard in favor of the school letting the child enroll. The question is, do you really think the two "parents" in question would really let the school try to teach the child that their behavior is wrong? If they're willing to cry afoul to the media over enrollment, do you think they would let it slide if a teacher taught about the passages in the Bible that call homosexuality a sin?
Which is actually the best argument against enrolling the children.
Because when you enroll the children into the school you also enroll the parents into the school, so to speak - even in the most uptight environment, parents are expected to be able to come in and speak to the staff, participate in parents' meetings, etc. You're going to be letting a couple that clearly doesn't share your values have a degree of influence - as parents and clients - into an environment which they clearly loathe and which holds their entire identity as evil.
This, also, incidentally, why there's no way in the world applying to the school is a good idea for the parents either.
A lot of modern LGBT individuals (myself excluded, and I am sure there are many who don't) - construct their entire identity around their sexual orientation. They're not people who happen to sometimes do it with people of their own sex. They are homosexuals, lesbians, or whatever. They have (or expect themselves to have) - differing tastes in movies, music, clothing etc. from straight people in the same way that Greeks have differing tastes in food and music from Italians.
To give an example as to how far this extends, I have once ended up on the grounds of a 'Gay movie festival'.
There exists, it turns out, an entire world of 'gay films' (not gay porn, but serious cinematography meant to aim for the homosexual's sense of style and taste). It was - I gathered from the posters - sort of like artsy-shmancy 'modern cinema', but the point is that a separate style of cinema is perceived to exist. The entire grounds where the festival was held were redesigned to fit, etc. etc.
This is to point to the essence of why this whole thing is a bad idea:
The traditionalist pastor or rabbi feels he's condemning a sin: not unlike condemning an act of adultery or fornication.
The identity-homosexual feels that the pastor is condemning his entire existence as evil. So from the point of view of a homosexual, male or female, sending a child to such an environment would be far worse then it would be for a sinner to send his child to church - after all, we all sin. From the point of view of a homosexual or lesbian, the school's belief hold the couple's entire existence as evil.
As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.
-
Which is actually the best argument against enrolling the children.
Because when you enroll the children into the school you also enroll the parents into the school, so to speak - even in the most uptight environment, parents are expected to be able to come in and speak to the staff, participate in parents' meetings, etc. You're going to be letting a couple that clearly doesn't share your values have a degree of influence - as parents and clients - into an environment which they clearly loathe and which holds their entire identity as evil.
This, also, incidentally, why there's no way in the world applying to the school is a good idea for the parents either.
A lot of modern LGBT individuals (myself excluded, and I am sure there are many who don't) - construct their entire identity around their sexual orientation. They're not people who happen to sometimes do it with people of their own sex. They are homosexuals, lesbians, or whatever. They have (or expect themselves to have) - differing tastes in movies, music, clothing etc. from straight people in the same way that Greeks have differing tastes in food and music from Italians.
To give an example as to how far this extends, I have once ended up on the grounds of a 'Gay movie festival'.
There exists, it turns out, an entire world of 'gay films' (not gay porn, but serious cinematography meant to aim for the homosexual's sense of style and taste). It was - I gathered from the posters - sort of like artsy-shmancy 'modern cinema', but the point is that a separate style of cinema is perceived to exist. The entire grounds where the festival was held were redesigned to fit, etc. etc.
This is to point to the essence of why this whole thing is a bad idea:
The traditionalist pastor or rabbi feels he's condemning a sin: not unlike condemning an act of adultery or fornication.
The identity-homosexual feels that the pastor is condemning his entire existence as evil. So from the point of view of a homosexual, male or female, sending a child to such an environment would be far worse then it would be for a sinner to send his child to church - after all, we all sin. From the point of view of a homosexual or lesbian, the school's belief hold the couple's entire existence as evil.
As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.
A superb post. Micro, I think you might have a better grasp of the real religious opposition to homosexuality than many self-proclaimed Christians. You said it yourself. We all sin. A lot of Christians looks at homosexuals as some sort of super-sinner, totally evil compared to themselves. What many don't realize is that in the eyes of God, jealousy for your neighbors new boat, anger at your coworker for getting credit for something you did, not getting charged enough for your goods at a store and not saying anything about it, these are all equal to homosexuality as sin. And those are all sins we commit everyday. There is no one righteous; no, not one. Many Christians forget that, to their peril.
-
My identity, on seeker_two's other hand, is wholly based on my high post count.
-
A lot of Christians looks at homosexuals as some sort of super-sinner, totally evil compared to themselves. What many don't realize is that in the eyes of God, jealousy for your neighbors new boat, anger at your coworker for getting credit for something you did, not getting charged enough for your goods at a store and not saying anything about it, these are all equal to homosexuality as sin. And those are all sins we commit everyday. There is no one righteous; no, not one. Many Christians forget that, to their peril.
That is only one view of Christian hamartiology. I'm not even sure it's a majority view. There is at least some Biblical support for the idea that some sins are worse than others.
-
As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.
Well said...maybe the couple should be investigated for emotional abuse.....
My identity, on seeker_two's other hand, is wholly based on my high post count.
Keep my hands off of you, you perv..... [ar15]
-
A lot of Christians looks at homosexuals as some sort of super-sinner, totally evil compared to themselves. What many don't realize is that in the eyes of God, jealousy for your neighbors new boat, anger at your coworker for getting credit for something you did, not getting charged enough for your goods at a store and not saying anything about it, these are all equal to homosexuality as sin. And those are all sins we commit everyday. There is no one righteous; no, not one. Many Christians forget that, to their peril.
Yes, there are some who treat homosexuality as worse then other sins. However, that is often not the case. It may seem that way, but that's because there is often more opposition to it when pointed out to a person then, say, thievery or other sexual immorality. Also, few other sins have people defining themselves by it.
-
>As such, what the couple has done here is majestically callous - not so much towards the school but towards their own child first and foremost.<
This is what bothers me most of all wit this situation.
This couple has taken their child, and turned them into nothing but a pawn for their political interests (basing that on their immediate run to the media). I really don't see any difference between using a child for self-serving political ends, and using a child for self-serving sexual ends. The damage might not be as great in the former case, but I think it's just as disgusting.
-
Yes, there are some who treat homosexuality as worse then other sins. However, that is often not the case. It may seem that way, but that's because there is often more opposition to it when pointed out to a person then, say, thievery or other sexual immorality. Also, few other sins have people defining themselves by it.
Also quite true.
-
Yes, there are some who treat homosexuality as worse then other sins. However, that is often not the case. It may seem that way, but that's because there is often more opposition to it when pointed out to a person then, say, thievery or other sexual immorality. Also, few other sins have people defining themselves by it.
People into "thug life" (gluttony or Extravagance (luxuria)). Or people gaming the government check (sloth). Or whatever you like to call members of any religion that are excessively self-righteous about it (pride). Or Jehovah's Witnesses (being really annoying). Or hipsters (envy).
Plenty of sins have their fandom. Why, I myself am quite a big fan of wrath, and to some extent, define myself by it.
:angel:
-
...still on the other hand, maybe the school should accept this child in order to minister to him about spiritual matters and moral behavior...which would include homosexuality as a sin and heterosexuality as God's will....parents may be a loss, but the kid should have a chance....and Christians are supposed to love the sinner yet hate the sin...
That is an interesting thought and maybe a noble purpose, but it depends on how far down that path you go. They also don't want to bring bad influences into their school either. Given the likelihood of a set up, I would go with the latter in their shoes.
-
This couple has taken their child, and turned them into nothing but a pawn for their political interests (basing that on their immediate run to the media). I really don't see any difference between using a child for self-serving political ends, and using a child for self-serving sexual ends. The damage might not be as great in the former case, but I think it's just as disgusting.
+1. To wit, previous discussions about what constitutes child abuse. This sort of thing doesn't include any sort of unwanted physicality, so it doesn't really fit into statutory guidelines, and for some very good reasons. Nevertheless, parental control over children serve the purpose of of allowing the parent to parent the child, not to use the child. When parental control is exploited for reasons unrelated to parenting (which includes earning income, no objections to family businesses and the like requiring children to contribute), the parents have probably crossed a line. Probably not a statutory one, but a moral one.
-
On the other side of the coin, some Christians claim that instead of sending your kids to a nice, safe Christian school, it is their duty to bring the light of the gospel to darkest Public School. I'm sure that works out OK for a lot of families, but it seems to ignore the fact that kids are just kids. You can't expect them (or not all of them) to be crusaders or apologists.
It's not as bad as what these parents are doing, but kind of similar in my view.
-
>Plenty of sins have their fandom. Why, I myself am quite a big fan of wrath, and to some extent, define myself by it.<
I've always prefered lust, myself. If nothing else, the legal ramifications are easier to deal with... >:D
-
People into "thug life" (gluttony or Extravagance (luxuria)). Or people gaming the government check (sloth). Or whatever you like to call members of any religion that are excessively self-righteous about it (pride). Or Jehovah's Witnesses (being really annoying). Or hipsters (envy).
Plenty of sins have their fandom. Why, I myself am quite a big fan of wrath, and to some extent, define myself by it.
:angel:
This is true. But if someone who was openly Pagan or a member of the "thug life" tried putting their kid there do you think the result would be any different? How about someone who is openly violent and wrathful to other members/families?
Sure, all sins have someone somewhere defining themselves by it. Some more so then others, such as those that go along with being a thug. But homosexuality is the current hot button issue of the day. It's *eta*not*/eta* treated any different then other open and life defining sin by most Christians, even if it seems that way. Most congregations wouldn't treat a set of homosexual parents any differently then unmarried parents.
-
Thanks, several of you, for pointing out another problem that was sort of floating around in my thoughts, but was unable to fully articulate:
Using one's child(ren) as object to one's own fulfillment.
In this case, it is using the poor kid as a tool / lever for the political homosexual agenda. These folks are not unique in that, however. Others use their kids as tools, politically, to a greater or lesser extent. Others use them to fulfill other desires the parent might have, however mundane ("Be the cheerleader I never was!") or monstrous (I'll let y'all fill in this one).
I'm not writing about making your kids study and work hard and brush their teeth or what have you. That is just part of raising a kid right and socializing them.
As for the whole "sin rankings" thing, some Christians get into that, either by their doctrine or misunderstanding. From my understanding / POV, many sins (whatever their specificity) begin to harden the heart so that one no longer perceives that it is sin, anymore. THAT callousness is what many Christians see as a greater threat to other sinners, if not some "greater" sin.
Kind of like the alcoholic or addict who sees nothing wrong with indulging that substance despite deleterious consequences. Such a person is difficult to reason with and will not be given responsibility in any church I have been a part of. The person who was or may still be and addict, but acknowledges it, works at it...well, I don't have enough fingers & toes to count the number of ministers and lay people with church responsibilities I have met who fit that mold. Many non-Christians may think Christians are "judgmental," but usually don't stick around to see the forgiveness in action after repentance.