A young child at a Boulder pre-school has been kicked out for an awful crime. The child was enrolled in a Catholic preschool, and also has two mommies. I'll leave you to guess which of those two is the awful crime.
According to teachers at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School, a meeting was held Tuesday to discuss the issue. The staff was told a student would not be allowed to re-enroll because of his or her parents' sexual orientation. The staff members were also told not to talk to the media.
Another interesting twist is that the staff at the school are described as "disgusted" with the decision; it came from on high, straight from the priests at the archdiocese. It's a case of the more secular staff knowing what the decent thing they ought to be doing is, and the religious buffoons using their holy dogma to do evil.
- Log in to post comments
Kid got out of there not a moment too soon.
I'm failing to find a downside to this.
Why would they kick him out? He would DEFINITELY need to be with Christ if he has two moms. Basically, they closed the doors of salvation to him.
/s
Way to go, Christians.
The catholic church is getting out of adoption services in areas where gays can adopt and cannot be discriminated against.
there's hoping that they'll withdraw from ALL services that may or may not "force" them to do so (or alternatively, have another one of those "we've always been at war with Eurasia" moments and drop the obsession with Teh Gay).
But there have to be secular services stepping in to fill the void.
Damn, I just missed out on being the first to make a comment.
Perhaps I can be the first to quote scripture on Pharngula?
"And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch them; but the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these". (Mark 10:13-4).
See you in Melbourne next week PZ!
So. Instead of being good jesuslovers and educating an obviously lost lamb that was thrown into their wolf hunting territories... They kick the kid out?
Talk about missing opportunities. The mamas had thrown their kids at you! What the hell are you doing?! You could've "saved a soul"!
...Of course I also wonder why the heck the mommies sent the kid there... I mean, they DO know how hateful these people are, right?
I say good to the bad publicity for the RCC. We've already seen how evil they are when Catholic Charties cut benefits to all couples in the hopes of detering teh gays and also threaten to stop foster care service.
They probably were afraid the child would bring the book "Heather Has Two Mommies" to school.
Better for the child, if this persuades the parents to change to a non-religious school from here on out. At least he's young enough that he won't go through the loss of built-up social relationships and shaming like the 18-year old that you posted about yesterday. Still, it's disgusting especially in light of the Vatican hustler scandal that just broke.
Or they were afraid that the other children in school might find out that the kid was normal, and so were her mothers.
That reminds me of how my sister was refused baptism as a baby because our parents didn't have a Catholic wedding. The Catholic Church is all about conversion and evangelism, except when the want to be all elitist and exclusive.
I really can't understand why they'd want to send their kid to a Catholic school, particularly if it's a little boy.
For that matter, I can't understand why -any- gays or lesbians would want to have anything to do with Christianity at all.
I'd have to support the school on this one, it's their school and they'll run it their way. That tastes really terrible to say, but it seems to be the law.
I had to go to Catholic schools all the way through high school, then finally escaped to a public university. If only my parents had been gay. No, wait a second...
Is it the school's philosophy or the RCC's? Both? All of Catholic dogma? Even the beliefs that contradict one another? Surely this isn't just a transparent excuse to exclude Teh Ghey?...
Now, please bow your heads for a moment of irony:
cath·o·lic /ˈkæθəlɪk, ˈkæθlɪk/ [kath-uh-lik, kath-lik] –adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.
My thought exactly. I really don't get it. Why would any gay person anywhere want to have anything to do with xtianity* at all?
I generally avoid hanging out with people who think I'm an abomination.
* OK, I admit it, I don't understand why any person buys that crazy krister shit.
And in other news, Catholic officials express astonishment that membership continues to plummet.
It wasn't the school that made this decision, it was the priests decision. Why's everyone getting so uptight? The Chuch hasn't demanded that the moms be burnt at the stake. The Church is making moral progress. But it's got a way to go.
Ah yes, not being burnt at the stake. How could I have forgotten? What an excellent point. Let's throw a fucking party.
Quite possibly because the Liars for Zombies don't have the balls of the local politicians in their heated iron grasp.
No. Some of the rest of society is, realising the Liars for Zombies are just that. Liars. Cheats. Paedophiles. In thrall to imagined Zombies.
An inability to roast those the Liars disagree with doesn't mean the Zombie Groupies are moral. It means the cult does not have the day-to-day absolute power in used to have.
It's also scripturally justified for them to punish the kid for something the parents did, which is possibly the second most odious thing about the Abrahamic religions.
vanharris @15 said
Sure, if you measure the progress from, oh, about 1095 or so. But you have to be an obtuse apologist, or just not paying attention, not to notice how the current reign of Pope Ratzenfratzen and his crusty cronies has been only the latest salvo in a series of deliberate moves to undue any moral progress that the Church might have made in the last 5 or 6 decades.
It seems only those who are members of its heirarchy are allowed to do "teh gay" in a Catholic institution.
Kamaka #13, there is an error in one of your sentences.
It will never make it there. To do so would require abandoning basic Christian (nay, religious) dogma:
If they're different, kill them.
their club, their rules shrug
This highlights a dilemma for many atheist parents. A lot of time, the local secular schools aren't nearly as good as the denominational schools.
And these fuckwads want my taxes to pay for religious private schools because?
@broboxley
Their "club" is a criminal organization which has a history of extortion, fraud, paedophilia, criminal conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.
So when do "our rules" come into play?
Vanharris @ 15:
No it isn't. They simply don't have the same power and authority anymore. It's a mistake to equate that with moral progress.
Regarding why the parents may have sent their kid to this school - it may have nothing to do with religion. As a wee little one, I went to a Christian pre-school (I don't remember the denomination) - not because my parents were religious (they weren't) but because ALL pre-schools in my area were religiously based, and there's good evidence that starting you children off in school pre-kindergarten correlates to better performance in school(especially for boys in their first few years). If there's no secular option, or if it's too expensive, far away or whatever, then it might be the only real option.
Pre-school was the one of the few times I've ever even stepped into a church - The other times were for a Funeral, Appeasing an old girlfriend who wanted to 'save' me (I only went once) and in my trips to Europe (cultural experience). My father went to Catholic school through high school, and there's nothing that'll make you jump ship faster than that.
I find it interesting that it is in Boulder. Boulder is probably the most Liberal city in Colorado as a whole. It is also the home of the University of Colorado, and the Naropa Institute(a Buddhist school). It is, as well as being liberal, very diverse and somewhat international in its flavor.
The local staff probably has a clue that this is a fantastic way to get negative media attention, which they are the ones that have to actually live in the community.
The archdiocese is based in Denver, and doesn't have the smaller city concerns. They just care about not getting in trouble with their peers or superiors by allowing this.
It's a obvious example of the evils of religion. But it's easily predictable, and the church will have very little to zero interest in making a change based on the negative media attention. I would think the mothers could have made a different choice, or the preschool could have warned them of the likely outcome. As others have stated, they are better off elsewhere.
Kamaka @13: I generally avoid hanging out with people who think I'm an abomination.
T-shirt! Gimme cap! Knitted, um, something or other!
Many years ago when I was in (Catholic!) college, my mother and I had long phone conversations in which we cried on each others' shoulders about what the Church was up to. She'd taken a part-time job in the parish office; my youngest sibs were in the grade school there.
She got to hear the school board meetings and such goings-on, including how that board decided to kick out one child whose somewhat dysfunctional parents couldn't afford the tuition. Being a reasonable person most of the time, she thought that there ought to be at least a fund for such kids, who needed some Christian love* most.
She took to calling it "the Catholic Club" al la Country Club, and pretty much walked out on the church (and the job) over the next couple years. Meanwhile, I was coming to the conclusion that being a nun was definitely NOT for me, having had a closer look at the institution.
It took me a little while to shuck the religion entirely, but it was interesting going through that process together.
We both got an education, I'll say that.
Ron Sullivan
Wonder what the decision would be it the kid was a star basketball player? Think they might look the other way???
But! Jesus had two dads.
While I agree that the kid is better off not going to Catholic school, the school's interpretation of this policy seems unusual. I've known many people who attended Catholic schools even though neither they nor their families were Catholic (nor any other kind of Christian). I wonder if this particular bit of hatefulness is unique to this school, or if it represents a new degree of peevishness on the part of Catholic schools everywhere?
I think the majority of the commentary is that their rules are stupid, not that they shouldn't be allowed to make them.
Having the right to do a thing is not the same as being right in doing it.
Catholic School is sometimes an affordable alternative in areas where the public school isn't so good.
They have the legal right to select their students any way they like. That doesn't mean we have to think the methods they choose are good ones.
Janice in Toronto @11 said
Two reasons off the top of my head:
1) As heironymous notes, often times the parochial schools are (or are at least perceived) to be far superior to the public schools offered in the district, and they tend to be much less expensive then other private alternatives
2) We tend to forget, or at least to underemphasize, the fact that for many (most?) Christians their relationship with the Church really doesn't have all that much to do with their "beliefs". A Church upbringing (especially in denominations like the RCC, who really know how to infuse their pageantry with pomp and finery and profound gravitas and nice-smelling incense and stuff like that) can really worm its way into one's sense of self, and this cultural (as opposed to doctrinal) affinity can come to be cherished in some people as much as people of their own kind (or even their own kin) are. Hence, tragic figures like Andrew Sullivan, who pretty much loathe everything about the Roman Catholic Church (at least, as it really exists today) but who nonetheless desperately cling to their identification as Roman Catholics.
"The Chuch hasn't demanded that the moms be burnt at the stake. The Church is making moral progress. But it's got a way to go."
Or they've gotten lazy or something. I mean, why bother burning them at the stake? When they die they'll burn in hell anyway!
But I agree with one thing... Private school. Their turf, their rules.
...Still gonna call them on being hateful homophobes though.
@Kamaka #13: Darn right. That's one thing I'll never understand... Gay people wanting anything with Jesuslovers. They hate you and think you're amoral abominations worse than Hitler (Or at least believe you're lost sheeps that made a bad choice.)! What is so hard to understand there? Don't go near their institutions and then get sad when you get thrown out... You should've known it FROM THE START.
To everyone who thinks, "their school, their rules, its legal, why send your kid there?". I had the same initial reaction but it is the wrong conclusion given the wider context
When Ratzinger was Prefect for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2001 he re-issued the Crimen Sollicitationis letter to all the Bishops in the world which reinforced absolute secrecy on matters of child abuse on pain of excommunication. It is impossible that he was unaware of the extent of the problem given his position and the massive court cases and damages being awarded to victims in the US. During all this time the catholic church continued to move paedophile priests around the world and refused to report them to the police. Therefore, the current pope is head of an international paedophile ring that has a written policy of obstructing justice and a proven track record of aiding and abbetting paedophiles.
The real question is how any country allows this institution to run any school anywhere.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=71831
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#cite_note-17
Having lived in Boulder, it's not exactly the first place I would expect to see anti-Gay sentiment. In fact, it's one of the more hippyish, do what you feel places that I've ever lived. What do you want to bet that the school administration was not based anywhere near Boulder?
I would bet that this is going to cause a lot of protests from the local community. And rightly so.
Wow. Another innocent child screwed by the Church.
Onward and downward.
I for one am outraged that these two women are not permitted to have their child educated in a philosophy that teaches that his parents are wicked and will burn in hell forever. I think I need my meds now...
Child: Don't kick me out of school, I can't choose my parents!
Church: Fuck you.
[OT]: Apparently snow sculptures of famous ancient sculptures are also evil - and even more so if they're dressed up like store mannequins. Now if that family had sculpted David it might be the end of the world ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8551528.stm
Who in the hell would want to become a Catholic priest these days? Being a life long virgin isn't all that popular, not that a lot of priests are life long virgins, but that is another problem.
I hate to stereotype on limited data, but a lot the priests who end up in the news media seem to be mentally and psychologically really abnormal. These days, might be a self selected lot of very strange men who go into the priesthood.
Only because the rest of society has been dragging it along, kicking and screaming.
1. Most schools have a mission statement where usually "the best interest of the child" or some such formula is hallowed. So they acted accordingly.
2. "Their school their rools" bullshit. There is such a thing as the Universal declaration of rights of the child, and the US as such endorses them. Shut this shithole
3. I wonder when (being generous I don´t write "if") the other PARENTS will withdraw their children from this school, in puking disgust.
@mike wagoner #26 your rules are in play, your rules allows them the right to make their rules in this country.
Called freedom of association
Personally I think that it stupid and wrong to assign blame to the kid for parental behavior
not letting them have their cracker on sunday is one thing but a kid in preschool is still an innocent
Child: My two mommies love me just as much as anyone could. Why do you hate them?
Church: Get out of my preschool before I beat the crap out of you!
Another voice here for "why the hell was the kid of lesbian parents in a Catholic school in the first place?" That's like sending a black kid to KKK Elementary.
The Church is making moral progress.
No it's not, any more than a crazed serial killer is "making moral progress" while he's in a straitjacket. We're not letting them pull (as much of) the same old bullshit anymore is all.
Joe Bleau @36:
You are bang on with the 'cultural' thing. I didn't get it as bad as my friends; my father is agnostic/atheist (he thought there was something 'out there', just not a 'god') and my mother was a convert to the RCC in her teens so there were none of the usual trappings of religion around the house, no grace said at meals, no bed-time prayers.
We did, however, attend a RC Primary School, have to attend Mass every Sunday and confession every Saturday so our wicked childish souls would be 'clean for Jesus'. No confession = no communion = (in my mother's imagination) censorious stares from the congregation when we failed to queue up for the host. In fact, most people had their eyes either closed in prayer because they had, or were about to have, partaken in communion, or averted in embarrasment and the fervent hope that no-one had noticed their non-participation.
Although I attended a non-Catholic secondary school (not secular; at that time all UK State schools were Protestant by default, including compulsory daily assembly with prayers and hymns) I had to sit-out R.E. lessons and study a Catholic correspondence course which was suplemented by summer school at which I eventually qualified as a Catechist.
All in all, despite a less intense brainwashing than many had, and despite a father who regularly tried to keep me from sinking too far into the morass, the weight of the Church hung itself around me and defined a large part of who I considered myself to be.
The shedding of my religion has been a decades-long affair. It may well be that the child's mothers still regard themselves as culturally Catholic despite what they may know at the back of their minds to be the Church's official stance on their sexual orientation; after all, I'll bet that the vast majority of attendees at Mass don't actually keep to the letter of Church law in such things as contraception, pre- and extra-marital sex et cetera.
Most of the time it doesn't matter; no-one investigates, no-one gets 'caught', nothing is ever said to individuals.
I reckon someone complained. Possibly another mother of a student. Probably one of those pearl-clutching, holier-than-thou, prissy types with the horrible feeling that someone was having more fun than her and wanted to put a stop to it.
Intellectually, I've had it with the lot of them. I just need help getting over the visceral guilt.
Religionists love teh G.A.Y (God, Allah, Jehovah).
Oops, Yahweh, not Jehovah.
"No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school's philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese," the statement said.
This statement should be read, and the context explained, to any lawmaker who wants to push "school choice" or "education vouchers", with the intent of including parochial schools for eligibility.
The school's, at least with all of the Catholic schools I have been associated with, though there is considerable overlap. They all admitted people of all faiths and hired teachers of all faiths and no faith. One of the goals of the schools is to evangelize and if the message offends you more than the education benefits you then don't go, no one is forcing you to listen. In fact you have to pay to hear it.
I went through Catholic school in the Bible Belt in the 80s and have to say that the education I got was worth the spirited discussions with my theology teachers over abortion, gay rights, and some embarrassing moments in Church history (Alexander VI, Avignon Papacy etc). We even watched the "Life of Brian" in Theology class, though the nun we convinced to let us watch it didn't stay in the room for long.
I think that now you can become and Anglican priest first, get married, then transfer into the Catholic Church as a priest and keep your wife. It requires some byzantine logic to justify, so I think that they will all have to become Jesuits.
Does anybody know if the Catholic Church offers gluten free host?
The thing about Catholic priests is that, while celibacy is supposed to be a sacrifice for them, in fact the priesthood clearly attracts the kind of men who just can't cope with sex at all, so doing without is a feature for them, not a bug. And this inability to deal gets more pronounced as you get away from the parishes and go up the hierarchy (which is why cardinals are the prissiest old farts in the known universe).
This has a lot of implications, but if you assume that Catholics as a population are no crazier than anyone else, and the priesthood acts as a magnet for their sexual basket cases (the male ones, at least), then lay Catholics, on average, should be less crazy in these matters than the general population. So it's not a surprise to find--as in this daycare center--rank-and-file Catholics disgusted by, and showing vastly better judgment than, priests.
Unfortunately, the priests probably can't self-correct on this. If they dumped the celibacy rule (or the males-only rule--if they got rid of one rule, the other would probably go shortly thereafter), they could eventually get priests who weren't completely batty w/r/t sexual matters. But look who'd be making those decisions: (a) priests who are completely batty w/r/t sexual matters; and (b) old men who would then have to acknowledge to themselves that they gave up a big part of their lives--not just the chance to do the nasty, but the chance to be someone's lover, or husband or dad--for no reason. That change would be too sane for the first group and too painful for the second.
Molly, NYC #56
It's more complicated than that. A large number of priests are gay. Belonging to a church which preaches that homosexuality is a greater sin than murder leads a fair number of men and women to a job where celibacy is a requirement.
Plus there are a fair number of priests who find sexual release in other ways, more or less licit. Considering how the RCC has made support and protection of child rapists an official policy, the Church hierarchy is quite cognizant about how the practice of priestly celibacy doesn't match the theoretical ideal.
Surely the parents saw this one coming up the Boulder Turnpike*. If not, they were idiots. Better off now anyway.
*unless this was Boulder Montana (or Utah, or Wyoming)
Molly NYC, spot on.
When I first came to Ireland almost 25 years ago, a common, well-wishing turn of phrase here was: "May your first be a bishop." Now it's more like (in my turn-about of the phrase, anyway): "May your first *not even think about* becoming a bishop!"
Another interesting twist is that the staff at the school are described as "disgusted" with the decision; it came from on high, straight from the priests at the archdiocese
This is EXACTLY what happened with Catholic Charities in Massachusetts.
A couple years after the Commonwealth started allowing same-sex couples to get married, the Boston Globe did some kind of study of Catholic Charities' adoption service. They found that in the previous 15ish years, about a dozen same-sex couples had adopted children from Catholic Charities.
These were kids whose parents were in prison or dead or whatever, and were legally under the guardianship of the Department of Social Services. CC was operating under a contract with the commonwealth to provide adoption services for the state...they were operating as a quasi-state agency.
Well, once the Bishops found out about this, they lost their shit. They went to Willard and to the legislature demanding that they be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples, thereby providing substandard services to the Commonwealth. Governor LDS-Asswipe was more than happy to accommodate, but they couldn't even get the Catholic leadership of the legislature to acquiesce to the Bishops' bigoted demands.
The Board of Directors of Catholic Charities voted unanimously to keep providing adoption services, including to LGBT adoptive parents. The Bishops forced them to withdraw from their contract with the Commonwealth.
The Roman Catholic Church is a far-right anti-gay hate organization and political lobbying committee.
Depends on the neighbourhood. It may be the best the ladies can afford, and the local 'public' schools are basically holding pens for prison and the morgue (very like my alma mater).
Hey Lesbian parents of small child. Go find a Unitarian Universalist church where they will appreciate you for being people and help you find a preschool for your kid. Regards - a UU from Oregon
Hey, progress is progress, no matter how small.
Thus I salute their graduation from GODAWFUL EVIL HYPOCRISY to godAWFUL EVIL HYPOCRISY, to the exact extent that it merits.
Hate group is hateful. Once again.
#32 Brilliant observation. Of course they were also a threesome. Oh the sin of it!
I thought the scenario sounded vaguely familiar, so I did some googling and found the story I was remembering. Only in that situation in 2006, the four year old daughter of a lesbian couple was denied entry into an Oregon Catholic School for having two mommies.
By the way, the Archdiocese of Denver has a statement regarding admissions:
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3513
True Catholics.TM
Well, that kid dodged a bullet. Don't hang where you're not welcome.
Certainly it is socially conservative, but to label it far right one must focus on a pretty narrow set of issues, primarily gay rights and where it is believed personhood begins. On equal rights for all races, services for the poor, international relations, whether Iraq was a just war, the death penalty, and more they are in the progressive camp. The world is too complicated for these facile dichotomies. Remember there are two kinds of people in the world: those who divide people into two categories and those who don't.
You know how protective mothers can be. The archdiocese probably figured it would too hard to get past two mothers. They prefer shooting sitting ducks.
I went to that school. 8th grade, in 1985-86. It was a small school that, at least for the Jr. HS grades, had to share facilities with Casey Jr. High which was a block away. I hated Sacred Heart... it was the last Catholic school I went to. It was cliquey (sp?) and just a pain to go to. The kid is better off going somewhere else.
Grewgills #69
Bwahhaahaa!
Did you just end a Catholic apologist screed with that statement? Seriously? I mean, really? Seriously?
Screed seems a bit severe. It wasn't all that long.
Just curious, if one is to the right of most on a few issues and to the left of most on others, does that make them hard right or hard left?
Thanks ;)
I don't think we're meant to take grewgills seriously, frankly.
there are two types of people in the world grew...
thems that are full of shite, and thems that ain't.
guess which one you are?
Grewgills,
It isn't a matter of right or left or the length of your drivel. You implied that Catholics don't categorize people. Care to back-up that claim?
I'm all ears.
I don't think I did.
See there you go with those false dichotomies again. I am exactly 52.8% full. Tomorrow I will be sober and back down to a comfortable 37.6%.
Tomorrow I will be sober
ah, so full o piss instead o shite.
whatever floats yer boat.
Quote-
"Does anybody know if the Catholic Church offers gluten free host?"
Don't worry - The Gluten is miraculously converted into Haemoglobin or somesuch.
Soo... in a world that is too complicated for facile dichotomies, Catholics do categorize people. Gotcha.
QED #38, from your link:
Isn't it adorable? Here they are, the year is 2010, and the abuse victims are still dragging the beaters and rapists, those who are still alive, into the light. How many cases, between 2001 and 2010, have been reported to the prosecution by the Church, exactly? How often has the Church acted on its own, before a victim or a witness went to the police?
In Church lingo, it appears that "dealing with it properly" means, "engage in relentless disclosure as soon as the perpetrators are dead or the legal statute of limitation applies".
They're purporting that they're finishing up the times of undisclosed abuse and cover-ups. I suspect that the abuses are ongoing, and in ten, twenty, thirty years we'll be hearing the same excuses about "we had no idea this was happening" and "it's really all that prevalence of sex in society and modernized liberal sexual morality that made the priest do it". If I had any money, I'd actually bet this will happen.
@and7barton #79 typo s/Haemoglobin/haemogoblin/g as far as the charge that catholics categorize people, from here, HERE? bwahahahahaha
black-wolf 72
Agreed,
compare "this document does not hinder investigation of civil authorities..." -global catholic network
with the actual text of the Vatican edict that demands secrecy under pain of excommunication
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2003/08/16/Cri…
see also the experience of the Irish Government: "Vatican and papal nuncio in Ireland ignored repeated requests from investigators for information on clerical sexual abuses cases"
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/abuse-why-did---t…
The Catholic Church has an official policy that civil authorities will NOT be informed of priestly child rape. The policy goes further in supporting and protecting priestly child rapists. There are severe ecclesiastical penalties for violating this policy.
The document also prohibits assisting the investigation without express permission from the Vatican. Such permission is rarely and only grudgingly given.
In short, the dignity of the Church is deemed more important than the welfare of children.
How is kicking a child out of a private school "evil?"
Morality requires considering the child first, not the parents. Besides, all religions are evil.
Taking morality lessons from the Catholic Church is a bit like taking cooking lessons from Jeffrey Dahmer
shockandblog
The "it's a private school, they can do what they want" argument is rubbish.
An institution that denies a child education in order to express its bigotry against lesbian parents is "evil" (in the general usage, not theological definition)
The fact that it is legal bigotry doesn't make it acceptable.
Their protection of pedophiles in their ranks supports my point. Of all the ways they could have handled these matters, they invariably picked the one that allowed them to handle it least. The CYA aspects weren't the main consideration--they were part-and-parcel of these very messed-up men's larger need to make the entire nasty, dirty, fleshy, private-parts-laden business go away, away, AWAY right NOW!!!
So if Camp Quest kicked out a kid because they were religious, would that, too, be "evil?"
Camp Quest does not discriminate like that, so it's a rather silly question.
Go ahead, fundies, please do enroll your children in Camp Quest this summer. They'll learn to think.
What a stupid question. And I seriously doubt if Camp Quest would kick out a kid for being religious. Now, if said religious kid was disruptive by proselytizing, maybe. Our point is that the kid, not the parents, should be the focus. Also, an allegedly moral agent, the RCC, is acting in an amoral fashion with their blatant discrimination. That makes the act evil in our eyes. Now, what part of that don't you understand?
and so apparently do a lot of their detractors.
The Catholic church does not fit comfortably in the right v left American political dichotomy. Anyone who thinks they do fundamentally misunderstands either the church or American politics.
I'm not arguing in support of the church or church doctrine or their position in this case; I'm arguing against facile and inaccurate generalizations.
QED,
If I am reading you correctly by your definition of evil the vast majority of humanity from the first civilizations until now were/are evil.
Xian morality is a myth as this creep just showed. Pay attention amoral Catholic apologist.
1. This is a preschool. The kid is maybe 4 or 5. What was this kid's sin? Nothing, the child didn't pick their parents. This is punishing and discriminating against a little kid who is innocent for the sins of the parents.
2. What horrible thing did the parents do? They are two women who are somehow married. Big deal. Being lesbians isn't catching and I doubt the kid will be a vector and infect everyone.
And how many of the other families parents are all as pure and holy as priests. Oops, bad analogy, but there could easily be child abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, embezzlers, etc. among other parents. The RCC wouldn't care, they are selective bigots.
3. AFAIK, the RCC doesn't kick out gays. They may be denied the sacraments but that happens (or should) to lots of people. The saying is, hate the sin, love the sinner or some such. Besides confession is always available.
4. So what is the point of the RCC? Kicking out a kid from a preschool won't suddenly make the parents turn straight and find husbands to make more little Catholics. It is a lot more likely to turn the parents and the kid against the RCC and religion in general. Which many would consider a cloud with a platinum lining.
No one disputed their right to be as stupid and hateful as they can. So in reality this is evil but it isn't really very evil.
It could be worse. The RCC is capable of great evil. They used to burn and kill witches, heretics, protestants, and scientists at the stake. Nowadays we don't let them do that. But the RCC is adaptable if you give them a few centuries. They have come up with new evils.
My friend went to Catholic school where a priest spent a lot of time "helping" a homeless boy. The kid eventually ended up killed in front of a fast moving train. This priest is now in prison as a pedophile. Now that is evil.
The allergic reaction to gluten may merely be due to an accident of the bread/flesh and not directly related to its underlying substance*.
* paraphrase of actual jesuit rationalization
Grewgills @93
Grewgills: "I'm not arguing in support of the church or church doctrine or their position in this case; I'm arguing against facile and inaccurate generalizations."
what's facile and/or innacurate about saying that religious people who kick a child out of school to express their bigotry against his/her parents are evil?
Grewgills: "The Catholic church does not fit comfortably in the right v left American political dichotomy"
OK, the RCC has a psychotic right-wing hard-on against teh gays and lefty sensibilities re aid to poor people (as long as they don't have access to condoms and abortions and do hate teh gays). What's your point? The same organization that teaches some children to read and gives them medical care also rapes them?
Grewgills:"If I am reading you correctly by your definition of evil the vast majority of humanity from the first civilizations until now were/are evil."
Are you really saying that based on humanity's past poor performance I can't call a specific act of bigotry evil? If the term "evil" is a problem for you, please substitute "unconscionable bigotry from a morally bankrupt RCC that rapes children"
It is facile and inaccurate to label them "hard right".
I am saying that to do so in this case greatly diminishes the meaning of the word. One who accepts this definition must view a considerable majority of living people as evil and think the same of the vast majority of people who ever lived. If you honestly hold that position you don't have much room to criticize the religious for being judgmental.
From the Denver Post article:
Uh, Father Breslin? Why would you be teaching anything about gay marriage to kindergartners?