There was this young child at a Catholic pre-school who was kicked out because his or her parents were lesbians. Now people are protesting, because that’s not what Jesus would do (I won’t quibble over their justifications — Jesus probably would have told the mob to stone the perverted parents to death — it’s OK that they’re doing the right thing for the wrong reasons). And the local newspaper runs a poll.
Yes
 43.98 %
No
 40.32 %
I’m not sure
 1.443 %
I don’t care if they protest or not
 14.24 %
For additional amusement, the good Reverend at the Catholic church at the center of this issue has a novel excuse for his actions.
“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad,” Breslin said on his blog. “We don’t want to put any child in that tough position.”
Isn’t that sweet? It’s for the good of the child that they evict them, so they don’t hear the cruel condemnations the church will give their parents.
How odd, usually they revel in telling kids how evil their parents are.
I sometimes question the thought processes of those who create poll questions.
I kind of agree with that reverend, but I don’t think he takes it far enough. Nobody should have to listen to the vile crap he spews.
Well we can protest it as in tell them they’re biggots but… It’s their right, really. Private school and all. The people sending their children to religious private schools oughta realize that there’s an insane biblethumper behind it and that these people come with their crazy sky faerie laws.
Bloody fucktards still.
How odd, usually they revel in telling kids how evil their parents are.
Really though, why do they want their child at Crazy School so bad? What are they really missing out on?
In a similar vein, the head of the David Duke Skkkool for the Pigmentally Challenged down the street remarked,
The compassion is so powerful, it could cut off the oxygen to one’s brain.
I swear I only hit submit once.
Sure, it’s the church school’s right to exclude whoever they want to, for whatever reason they want to.
It’s also valid to protest it. Another sucky poll question.
Translation: We can read God’s mind !! And by a strange coincidence, God thinks exactly what we do.
Translation: We are saying that their parents are bad.
Translation: God forbid we should keep our mouths shut on the topic.
I wish they’d make up their minds. Is homosexuality wrong or not? If it is, then surely it’s their responsibility to let the child know? Would their Jesus approve of them weaselling out of providing clear moral instruction?
Of course, I think the Catholic church’s position on homosexuality is evil bullshit, but it’s their bullshit, and they should either stand behind it or abandon it.
Do you think that gives us the right to evict him and his fellow priests from society ?
Maybe we could put all the priests on an island somewhere, and just leave them. If god cares about them enough they will survive, and if not, well tough.
Michelle R @3: Sure it’s their right to discriminate – but it’s our right to protest that discrimination.
While the Reverend’s reasoning is twisted, it may have a true core: Catholicism probably can’t reach the amount of immersion required to truly make a child believe its parents are evil; chances are the child will instead come to the conclusion that something is wrong with Catholicism. And we can’t have that, can we?
I feel slightly ashamed that when I hear/read a catholic priest saying something like:
“We don’t want to put any child in that tough position.”
What flits briefly through my mind is “Perhaps, but I bet you have a series of other tough positions you’d like to put a child in.”.
I think these chaps have queered their own pitch. Perhaps a little less “gobby holy morally worrily” and a little more “shutty uppy and goody workies” is needed?
Louis
If Breslin were to follow his own logic, he would need to expel all the children of “imperfect” parents. After all, if a parent lies, divorces, doesn’t give everything s/he has to the poor, uses birth control, whatever…then s/he isn’t following the will of God, and the school would have to put Jr. in the awkward position of telling him his parents are bad. But since when have Catholics shied away from laying on the guilt?
Had this taken place in the UK it is likely the Kindergarten would be breaking the law. Here in the UK we have a civilised law that prohibits the denial of services to the public on the grounds of sexuality. The law applies regardless of whether the entity providing the service is in the public or private sector: If you provide services to the public you cannot refuse to do so on the grounds of sexuality (or sex, religion or race either, or age in some circumstances).
I disagree. There is a biblical argument that Jesus healed a “male love slave” of a Roman Centurion.
@tdcourtney (#6) – I would never send my kids to a Catholic school, but in some places Catholic schools are very prominent and provide a very high quality education (though I’m not sure about their science curricula) aside from the indoctrination classes. Sadly, in my area many parents choose to send their kids to Catholic schools even though they are not Catholic to avoid the potential problems in the public school system. So if we have failed to provide a quality public education, and the best source (setting aside a handful of religious indoctrination classes) for a relatively affordable, high quality education is Catholic schools, and those schools are accredited by the state, what is a parent to do?
Thinking that way, maybe any school accredited by the state has an obligation not to discriminate. As Mrs. Tilton insinuated above, they can’t discriminate against black children (or parents), why can they discriminate against homosexual (parents)?
@Yoritomo (#12)
Good point.
Hey, these are the people who thought the inquisition was just tough love. Burning the village in order to save it is pretty much SOP for these guys.
Catholic parochial school was a large part of the reason behind my “conversion” to atheism.
“Is it valid to protest-”
Yes.
The real question here is whether they should be discriminating, and the answer there is no, whether their views on homosexuality are correct or not.
Even if we accept their premise that gay=evil, they’re still being bad people. That child is being raised in a house of sin and depravity, and clearly needs to be rescued, lest they be taught the ways of their “parents”. If they really wanted to do the right thing, they’d be taking that child away from those two evil sinners raising it.
I disagree. There is a biblical argument that Jesus healed a “male love slave” of a Roman Centurion.
Did more than that–went out of his way to praise the guy for his faith.
Why, of all the sinful parents of students, were only the lesbian parents singled out?
Using this rationale, Catholic schools probably shouldn’t admit the large number of non-Catholic students that they currently do, since those students will surely learn that many of their parents are not living according to the will of God (as dictated by God and delivered by the Holy Spirit (who is also God, but is not God the Father, but keeping in mind that there’s only one God) into the heads of the men who rule the Catholic Church).
And what about children who have Catholic parents who are divorced and have remarried, which the Church also teaches is against the will of God? What about children who have parents who never married, also against the will of God?
The only reasons I can see for the Church’s action against the student with two mommies is having two mommies is more of a visible affront to the sensibilities of the men running the Church than the other situations.
Plus having two mommies is probably rarer than having parents who are going to hell for other reasons, and kicking out all the other students with sinful parents would probably decimate the student body of most Catholic schools.
That and the fact that the person or persons responsible for the decision in this case are bigots.
Isn’t anyone going to ask why a catholic PRESCHOOL is talking about homosexuality?
I remember preschool. We did stuff like watch sesame street and learn the alphabet and make macaroni pictures. Sure it was secular but really, isn’t a sectarian preschool mostly going to be singing songs about jesus? IT ISN’T LIKE THEY CAN READ THEY ARE IN PRESCHOOL! Are they seriously sitting down with a pack of three-year-olds and telling them “hey kids, you know when a man and another man love each other? That’s wrong! …No not like your daddy loves you, that’s okay. …No not like your daddy loves his daddy, that’s okay. …No not like you love your brother, that’s okay. Well you see it’s… um…”
Who wants their kid to go to that preschool anyway. Creeeeeeepy.
@17: “though I’m not sure about their science curricula”
Catholic schools have no problems with science education in general (and evolution in particular).
What they really don’t want is to to put themselves in the tough position of having their priestly authority questioned by those children (and their friends) who will have a contrary perspective based upon their own positive family experiences. Cowards, all of them. That’s why they have to oppose gay marriage as a general rule, even among non-catholic, no-christian people — the reality of it puts they lie to ever bigoted attitude they hold as eternal truth.
I really don’t understand the close-minded, religious kook’s argument. He seems to be saying, “We think that it would be better if this kid attended a school run by some open-minded liberals.”
And, if that is the subtext, I find myself agreeing with him which is weird.
No, they just preach a homophobic and misogynistic agenda. But since they are OK with evolution we should not criticise them for a little bigotry.
Better solution: Don’t try to brainwash children with your idiotic garbage. That way, everyone wins! Yay for basic logic! :D
That child will, however, have to interact with other children, who HAVE been taught that gay marriage is against the will of God and that homosexual love is a damnation-worthy sin. Kids don’t live in a vacuum. If this school actually cared about not putting kids in a tough position, they wouldn’t teach bigotry and judgment at all.
@28: “…we should not criticise them for a little bigotry.”
OK, if that’s what you think. That’s not what *I* think (though that that’s pretty much the response I expected).
I was responding in a very focused manner to a previous comment, which I quoted.
The Catholic Church can be criticized for many things. To my knowledge, their science education is not one of those things.
Nobody hates gays as much as a bunch of closeted gays and pedophiles that have sworn a vow of celibacy… except maybe closeted California Republican Senators.
Haggard’s Law is alive and well.
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2010/03/05/haggards-law-please-add-it-to-your-lexicon/?xrs=rss_indecisionforever
“Jesus probably would have told the mob to stone the perverted parents to death”
I doubt that, considering he told off a group of Pharisees when they wanted to stone an adulteress.
I think you misunderstood what I said, although the fact you do not think the RCC’s stance on women’s and gay’s rights is worrying.
There are some people who regard criticising potential allies in the battle against creationism as being an impediment to getting those allies onboard in support. Some within the NCSE seem to fall into this category, as do others like Mooney and Kirshenbaum. The seem so pre-occupied with creationism, and anti-science in general, that they ignore larger concerns and seem willing to sacrifice those concerns to win their smaller, and less important, battles.
alukonis @24
Well, pretty quickly the kids would figure out that Heather has two mommies, while the rest of them have a mommy and a daddy (or just a mommy, or just a daddy, or are raised by Grandma and Grandpa, etc.). They are going to ask Heather, who probably has some basic idea about why her family is different, since she’s grown up seeing that most families are not like hers, but they might also ask the teachers. The question comes up whether the teachers tell the kids that, yes, Heather does have two mommies but that is Not Okay, and kids, who are still learning how to play with others, will either use that as an excuse to be dicks, or will decide that the teachers are dicks, based on if they like Heather. Or, the teachers could explain that yes, Heather does have two mommies, and keep quiet about the fact their bosses and Baby Jesus are Not Okay with this — which will keep the class coherent while they make macaroni pictures and sing songs, but will get the teachers in trouble, and might let the kids figure out that Heather and her family are fun, normal people.
So, easier to just pretend that people like Heather and her parents don’t exist until the kids know that they are Not Our People.
@34: “…the fact you do not think the RCC’s stance on women’s and gay’s rights is worrying.”
Assumes facts not in evidence.
Really ?
“OK, if that’s what you think. That’s not what *I* think (though that that’s pretty much the response I expected).”
That was in replying to “…we should not criticise them for a little bigotry”
That seems to indicate you think they should not be criticised for their bigotry.
Sorry, but the facts are in evidence. You said it.
Actually you have to admit that the priest there makes a good point. It shows a certain amount of honesty to just kick out the children of gay parents rather then pretend they aren’t deeply homophobic.
I would counterprotest this demonstration with signs about freedom of speech and letting homophobes be homophobes. I’m sure the church would appreciate my support.
~from PZ’s first post on this.
The teachers don’t seem to be the problem. Because, y’know, they have the morality to know that discrimination against children for something completely out of their control is wrong. Priests, OTOH, are a bit more morally challenged.
Notice the out-of-place “I don’t care” option. Most polls don’t include an option that says you don’t care about the results, presumably if you’re answering the poll you care a little. They’re diluting results with the extra option.
@Matt Penfold – At the risk of getting into a fight that I want nothing to do with, I’ll try to clarify things a bit. I think you must have missed something. You said: “we should not criticise (sic.) them for a little bigotry”, to which wildwilly1111 responded “That’s not what *I* think.” That seems to me to suggest that you think that the church should not be criticized, but that wildwilly1111 thinks that it should. Now maybe (probably) you were being sarcastic, and maybe wildwilly1111 was too, but it seems unambiguous that wildwilly1111 thinks that it is OK to criticize the church, just that he (or she) was focusing on an entirely different issue for the moment. But now the potential double and triple negatives are beginning to confuse me.
I am not sure if that is worse than the normal christian doctrine that humanity’s nature is corrupt and all that anyone is worthy of is eternal torment.
Hmm, seems they’ve changed the poll wording, and added options for whether or not you’re Catholic:
Gus Snarp,
I can only apologise if your reading comprehension, or rather lack of it, led you to misunderstand what I said.
However I still maintain that my original comment was clear that I was talking about a group of people that did not include myself. The “Some people” might have given it away to some better at reading comprehension than you, especially in light of the fact the tone suggested I did not agree, and the lack of “myself included”.
To be honest, if your reading skills, and those of wildwilly1111 are so poor I really have little interest in addressing you.
“Jesus probably would have told the mob to stone the perverted parents to death”
Firstly let me say that I disagree with the obvious bigotry being displayed by the Catholic church here. I am also a rational free thinking human being and not a religious type at all. But I must disagree with this statement that you have made. Whether you believe Jesus is God made flesh or not he is in the bible as a pacifist and a man of peace. One of the stories is that he intervened in the stoning of a woman accused of adultery and stopped it happening.
I feel that this statement goes as far as undermining your whole piece and lets you down terribly.
eeanm #38 why take the time out of the day to counter protest, tell the wankers from phelps group to handle it for you. With any luck there will be violence and a good loathing for everyone present.
@Matt Penfold – See, I knew it would start a fight. Sheesh. I just think that you and wildwilly1111 are misunderstanding each other. I think that the words “maybe (probably) you were being sarcastic” in my comment made it pretty clear that I understood that it was not your personal view that we should not criticize the church, but that nevertheless it was the notion that we should not criticize that wildwilly1111 was disagreeing with (whether or not he thought you really meant it). Take it or leave it, I’ll let it go at that and assume that readers who care about our statements can make reasonable judgments. And I’ll never try to clarify anything here again for people who are just itching for a fight.
Your concern is noted.
I would also point out Jesus was not a pacifist. If I recall he used violence against the money-lenders in the temple.
I feel your statement about Jesus being a pacifist undermines your whole comment and lets you down terribly.
The Jesus of the Bible is a pile of contradictions. He advocated both peace and violence.
As a product of Old Testament morality, though, I doubt that the historical Jesus (if there was such a being, which I also doubt) would have been at all tolerant of sexual deviations from the tribal norm.
@37:
Let us review.
You said: “…we should not criticise [the Catholic Church] for a little bigotry.”
To which I reponded: “OK, if that’s what you think. That’s not what *I* think…”
From which point you made the astounding leap to this: “I think you misunderstood what I said, although the fact you do not think the RCC’s stance on women’s and gay’s rights is worrying.”
…
Ah, now that I put it all together in this manner, I realize that I should not have said, “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
What I should have said was, “Fix the grammar in that sentence so I can respond appropriately.”
Look, my original comment was clear.
If you could not understand it, and you seemed to admit you could not, that is your problem. Take your reading comprehension issues and piss off.
Your reply indicates you do not think the Catholic Church should be criticised, since I think they should. The idea it should not be criticised is not mine, it was one I was saying others advance.
Since I think the Catholic Church should be criticised, and since you said you do no think that, it is dishonest for you to claim that you did not say they should not be criticised.
Quit lying about what you said, and also try to understand the context of this debate since clearly you do not.
Please note the quote from the relevant archdiocese spokescritter, and the hypocrisy thus revealed.
@50, 51:
So, you choose to label the two people who take issue with your written word as either lacking reading comprehension skills or outright lying.
I propose a different explanation: Your reliance on sarcasm in 28 (which, your criticism notwithstanding, seems to have been accurately assessed in 40) clouded the issue, at least in your own mind. (Sarcasm is difficult to unambiguously portray in written word without explicit flags – a fact acknowledged in certain Ethiopian languages.)
Your incomplete thought in 34 did not help. (Parsing the sentence – a skill I learned in a Catholic grade school – yields, in its simplest form, “…although the fact.”)
Why does it matter? You say it all the time anyways when they are at church.
You said you disagreed with me. It is not my problem you failed to understand what I said. As I have made clear, your reading problems are your problems, not mine.
You claimed you disagreed with me. Either you lied about that or your failed to understand what I said. Stupidity or dishonesty. There was the possibility of a third option, a simple mistake on your part but since you have not admitted to that I think that option has passed.
I would note that claiming I was make assertions without evidence was untrue as well. You had said you disagreed with me and it is pointless trying to deny it.
I also note you were wrong in your original contention, that the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. Since the Catholic Church teaches that humans were the inevitable end point of the evolutionary process, and since that idea is rejected by the overwhelming majority of evolutionary biologists it clearly does have a problem with science. Its teachings are in conflict with the science. Maybe not to the extent of YEC, but still in conflict. Again, you seem to lack some honesty here.
wildwilly1111,
I would also add I do assume people debating here have some familiarity with the subject. For example, the fact that some secularists and atheists think criticism of religious groups who may be potential allies in a battle against other religious groups is misplaced since it would run the risk of alienating them, is something I expect you to already be aware of.
Translated: We don’t want a child that loves their parents and shares their values to decide that my god and what I say he/she/it wants is a vicious pile of crap.
@broboxley: I doubt Phelps would ever want to appear to be on the side of papists, ironically or not. :D
@55: You confuse Catholic philosophy with Catholic science curriculum.
@56: Introducing a non sequitur does not advance your argument.
I believe that at this point I will follow Gus’ admirable lead in 46.
The schools are accredited by non-government institutions, out here it’s WASC.
The Jesus of the bible regularly tolerated a number of deviations from the tribal norm including sexual deviations from the norm. His association with tax collectors, lepers, prostitutes, and others considered unclean by the tribal norms of his day is evidence of this. Looking at only red letter text there is no condemnation of homosexuality or various other bigotry promulgated by subsequent churches that claim to spread his word. I believe Paul wrote two letters that contained condemnation of homosexuals, other than that the NT is clean on that particular front.
Again reverting to red letter, he did much more of the former. His violent ejection of the money lenders from Temple grounds and a metaphorical taking of the sword to ones parents are the only two promotions of violence by Jesus that come to mind, whereas there are a host of exhortations to non-violence. The various church’s that claim to be his representatives however…
I’m sure someone reading this has catalogued all exhortation to violence in the NT. Care to add them up?
But you do think the child’s parents are bad, right? That’s the Church’s policy. Or are you caught in a contradiction? The child’s parents aren’t actually bad, being gay isn’t actually bad and you don’t want the child to hear your dark-age-inspired lies about its parents?
How interesting that when it comes down to the moral choice, it is so much as admitted that the policy of the Church doesn’t jive with reality and being removed from the school is for the good of the child. An interesting admission. Oh, these comments will condemn you, bigot -or, um, Breslin.
It seems to me that this is a case of illegal discrimination, assuming the Catholic group in question explicitly mentioned the sexual orientation of the parents as the reason the child was expelled.
While a private preschool has the right to refuse children for whatever reason it chooses, when it specifies a reason, it must demonstrate consistency else be guilty of discrimination. Since it is a central tenet of Catholicism that every human is a sinner, and since it is a given that there are Catholics who are ‘unrepentant sinners’ (presumably some of whom have children attending this preschool), the preschool administration would have to expel any child where it has been determined that ‘unrepentant sin’ is characterized in the parent(s). In the case of the lesbian couple in question, one would think that if they went to confessional, and mentioned their ‘sin,’ the school would have to allow the child for the same reason that any children are accepted.
Irrespective of the legal outcome, however, it seems a given that the issue is bad press for a much-beleaguered institution.
—
Stan
#60
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
Have fun.
This, unfortunatelty, is not the worst in Catholic homophobic thinking. There are Catholic priests who think that homosexuality is somehow to blame for all the sexual abuse within their church and that AIDS is a disease exclusive to gay people.
@Grewgills: Well put.
If someone says “that is not what I think” to the statement “they should not be criticised”, how do you get that it indicates they agree with the original statement?
Wow — looking at the portion of voters who claim to be catlick – the bigots significantly outnumber the more sensible people. So much for their lies about a “moderate” religion.
Matt Penfold passim,
because I agree with you completely about the RC church, I’ll be friendly enough to suggest that you might find trying to be slightly less a dickhead will result in less thread-space being wasted on idiotic bickering. In any event, somebody capable of penning “although the fact you do not think the RCC’s stance on women’s and gay’s rights is worrying” as an ostensibly complete thought really ought to learn how to write before complaining that others can’t read.
The poll was rephrased.
“No” and “No, but I’m catholic” is roughly 60%;
The question is “Do you agree with the Archdioces’ decision”.
Why would anyone even want to send his or her kids to a catholic school; that’s what bothers me..
Matt @11
Nice distortion. I only meant that he’d be doing everybody a favor if he’d shut up.
What he said was: “OK, if that’s what you think. That’s not what *I* think…”
However it is clear from the context that I was not saying they should not be criticised. What I think is that they should be criticised, and so the wildwilly1111 when he said he did not agree with me was saying they should not.
I note he still has been unable to admit he failed to understand me. I also note he has failed to acknowledge he made an untruthful statement saying the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. As PZ clearly indicated, they do, albeit a different problem than the YECs. The inevitability of the evolution of humans, which is part of Catholic teaching, is not accepted scientific theory.
I am not sure what you are on about here.
I was agreeing with you and suggesting that sending him, and his fellow priests to an island where we would not have to hear from them again would be a smart move. It was not meant as a serious suggestion.
Jeez, what the fuck is up with people today ? We have wildwilly1111 showing he is piss poor at comprehension , we have Tilton thinking pointing out dishonesty is being a dickhead, and we have you telling me I distorted what you said.
It seems to me that this is a case of illegal discrimination, assuming the Catholic group in question explicitly mentioned the sexual orientation of the parents as the reason the child was expelled.
You do realize that there is no illegal discrimination taking place here, right? There are no federal laws protecting LGBT people from discrimination, and those state laws that exist pretty much always exempt religious organizations.
The Roman Catholic Church’s bigotry is protected by law. LGBT folks aren’t.
No. He did not say he disagreed with you. He said he disagreed with the statement “they should not be criticised”. Improve your own reading comprehension.
Penfold @73,
Jeez, what the fuck is up with people today ? We have wildwilly1111 showing he is piss poor at comprehension , we have Tilton thinking pointing out dishonesty is being a dickhead, and we have you telling me I distorted what you said
Yes, that must be it, Matt. Everybody else is wrong and you are right. You’ll excuse me now, though. My Ockham’s razor has grown dull, I must replace the blade.
RijkswaanVijanD #70
Because in many areas Catholic schools are better academically than public schools.
He said: “OK, if that’s what you think. That’s not what *I* think…”
Since I did not say they should not be criticised, other than as something others say that I do not agree with, then he cannot have been referring to that part of what I said.
If he mistakenly thought that I was saying they should not be criticised then he failed totally to understand what I was saying. However he has not said he made that mistake, so I discount that possibility.
There are two polls on that page. The one on the right side, lower, has the same question, without the “Yes/No, and I am catholic” response, and we are LOSING that one.
OK Tilton, other than the fact I missed off wrong in “although the fact you do not think the RCC’s stance on women’s and gay’s rights is worrying” tell me in what way my post lacked clarity.
re 78:
Yes, and directly above that statement he quoted “”…we should not criticise them for a little bigotry.”
indicating exactly what he was disagreeing with.
Even if we include all of your statement, in context, it appeared that you were characterizing his “the RCC has no problem with evolution” as implying that therefore he thinks the RCC should not be criticised. His response to that was that is not what he thinks.
recap:
ww111:”Catholic schools have no problems with science education in general (and evolution in particular).”
MP:”No, they just preach a homophobic and misogynistic agenda. But since they are OK with evolution we should not criticise them for a little bigotry.”
ww111:” ‘…we should not criticise them for a little bigotry.’ OK, if that’s what you think. That’s not what *I* think.
—
I still do not understand how you can interpret that as a statement that the RCC should not be criticised. Yes, clearly you disagree with the RCC and believe they should be criticised. But you are not saying that directly but only by sarcasticly characterising ww111’s first statement as absolving the RCC from criticism. His “that is not what I think” clearly is a reply to that, that he does not think what you implied he thought.
If they find it necessary to discuss how gay marriage is ‘bad’ with kindergarteners, hopefully it is a minor part of their on-going safety discussions with all the students to alert them about how ‘bad’ it is for priests to tell young boys that God wants them to cooperate with the priests’ sexual requests. Or perhaps from a child safety standpoint they should focus on the latter message and leave discussions of the morality of gay marriage until the children are closer to marriageable age?
Sorry, Matt. I thought you were putting words in my mouth. Didn’t mean to take my crappy day out on you.
Why the fuck would they want to send their kids to a Catholic school anyway?
I’m pretty sure the school did that kid a favor.
A few thoughts
1. The parents may well be Catholic (there is even a Catholic LGBT group, Dignity). The Catholic hierarchy may preach one view, many of the Catholic laity often have their own views whether it be on birth control, gays or whatever (this does go both ways hence the Catholic YE creationists).
2. It was not the school that kicked them out but the diocese (a bit like the state government ordering a state university to ban someone). The people on the ground interacting with the students seem to have had no problems with the parents both being female.
3. At least they seem to be allowing the kid to finish the year and not leaving the parents scrambling (admittedly this might have been economics, they would probably have to refund already paid tuition otherwise).
And PZ Squiddy fails Bible 101 with this comment:
” Jesus probably would have told the mob to stone the perverted parents to death”
Um, waitaminute, didn’t Jesus actually prevent a mob from stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery? Oh. Wait. That’s right.
So there’s a good chance He probably wouldn’t have, but a good atheist “scientist” should never let the facts stand in the way of Christophobic rhetoric, eh?
Sirius Knott
The nuns seemed to love singling me out as needing extra prayers because I was the child of a mixed marriage (my father wasn’t Catholic). No one tried to protect me from the nasty things that were said about my parents.
siriusknotts, you’re cherry-picking. I can do that, too. He also got mad at the money-changers, then went home and hand-crafted his own scourge to use on them. That would be premeditated assault there. And then there’s the time he cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season! That’s just insane.
Well, Catholic church can be very flexible on the things they can or cannot accept, depending on the country and the time they are.
Remember also that Catholic Church is not an USA born organization and has to deal, maintain coherence and adapt to ideas from all around the world. The important decisions (as to accept a kid with 2 moms) have to be consulted with Rome, from where I’m sure the final decision came.
But Catholic church (and I’m making a distinction between an average catholic person and the catholic burocracy / organization) HAS to have some dogmas and though they can change or give up in many subjects, they still and will defend that homosexuality is against god’s will.
Now, I personally don’t agree with Catholic church regarding LGBT being sinners. I really don’t care, gays can be nice or ugly people as any group of people can be nice or ugly.
I don’t have problems with LGBT, my point is:
Church has to have some absolutes, different churches have different absolutes.
The little girl being expelled is for me both rigth and wrong; Rigth in the sense that the organization has some rules and they are acting according to those rules (what’s the problem). And wrong, terrible wrong bcs Catholic church shouldn’t have those rules in the first place.
Well, Catholic church can be very flexible on the things they can or cannot accept, depending on the country and the time they are.
Remember also that Catholic Church is not an USA born organization and has to deal, maintain coherence and adapt to ideas from all around the world. The important decisions (as to accept a kid with 2 moms) have to be consulted with Rome, from where I’m sure the final decision came.
But Catholic church (and I’m making a distinction between an average catholic person and the catholic burocracy / organization) HAS to have some dogmas and though they can change or give up in many subjects, they still and will defend that homosexuality is against god’s will.
Now, I personally don’t agree with Catholic church regarding LGBT being sinners. I really don’t care, gays can be nice or ugly people as any group of people can be nice or ugly.
I don’t have problems with LGBT, my point is:
Church has to have some absolutes, different churches have different absolutes.
The little girl being expelled is for me both rigth and wrong; Rigth in the sense that the organization has some rules and they are acting according to those rules (what’s the problem). And wrong, terrible wrong bcs Catholic church shouldn’t have those rules in the first place.