IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Posted September 23, 2005 Now THIS is weird. In a post on this thread Ed said someting like: "The Dean is right" I was in the process of replying to Ed...to warn him of the dangers of making a statement like that and lo and behold...that post is gone! Either Ed, or SDS or an intelligent Mod decided to eliminate the post and save Ed the embarrassment of haveing to live with that statement. To whoever deleted Ed's post: Good Work! (intelligent Mod?????) 451687[/snapback] Yeah, what's up with that? Am I not allowed to agree with The Dean?!
KD in CA Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I say I'm the universal judge! Sorry...my bad. Seriously though, how about this scenario: A white girl is accpeted into a private school. They find out she is adopted by two black parents. They kick her out, because that to them is immoral. Is that OK? 451679[/snapback] Apples and oranges. Homosexuality is a highly sensitive issue within the religious structure because marriage and children are fundamental pillars of the religious belief system. Those in charge believe that homosexuality is a direct assault on those principles (and thus on religion itself), which is why you see such a hard fight to 'ban' gay marriage. Race or color has no such similar impact on religion.
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I am defending this school's right to set forth its own curriculum and admission policy based upon its interpretation of religious texts. They put forth a set of reasonable guidelines and they were violated. I suggested a possible rationale for their decisions. I'm sure there are many other reasons behind their admission policy that I haven't thought about. Those women chose to ignore those policies plain and simple. I have always found it quite amusing how people who obviously don't subscribe to Christian teachings are hell bent on telling them how to conduct their business. 451685[/snapback] I think the disagreement here is on whether the guidelines were "reasonable". I don't thik they are...you do. To discriminate against a girl based on her parents lifestyle (not hers) is not reasonable, IMO. I would be REALLY MAD if they get any gov't assistance.
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Posted September 23, 2005 Sorry...my bad. Apples and oranges. Homosexuality is a highly sensitive issue within the religious structure because marriage and children are fundamental pillars of the religious belief system. Those in charge believe that homosexuality is a direct assault on those principles (and thus on religion itself), which is why you see such a hard fight to 'ban' gay marriage. Race or color has no such similar impact on religion. 451690[/snapback] But it did 50 years ago. It's not apples and oranges, more like, oranges and tangerines.
Alaska Darin Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 So an openly discriminatory policy is OK, as long as it's a policy? Would it be OK if neither of the parents could be Black? Left-handed? Mac users? 451612[/snapback] It is absolutely OK for private entities to discriminate on membership and it should be as long as they don't accept public money.
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Posted September 23, 2005 It is absolutely OK for private entities to discriminate on membership and it should be as long as they don't accept public money. 451697[/snapback] Now who asked you to get involved!
Johnny Coli Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of descrimination hiding behind a religeous subtext, to me.
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 It is absolutely OK for private entities to discriminate on membership and it should be. 451697[/snapback] If you say so (I'm sure PRIVATE is the key here). But, do any schools deny membership to a person who's Father (for example) is Catholic, even if the wold-be member is not?
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Posted September 23, 2005 Yeah, what's up with that? Am I not allowed to agree with The Dean?! 451689[/snapback] Seriously, why was that post deleted?
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Seriously, why was that post deleted? 451702[/snapback] Don't fight it...it's a good thing, Ed. You don't need that black mark on your record.
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 For those of you who didn't RTFA: Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship," The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday's edition. Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences.
IBTG81 Posted September 23, 2005 Author Posted September 23, 2005 For those of you who didn't RTFA:Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences. 451706[/snapback] Blinded by the "Christian Light", huh?
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 For those of you who didn't RTFA:Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences. 451706[/snapback] Well, the girl's court case should be a doozy. Imagine if/when she gets a PI to dig up all the adultory dirt on parents whose children are in the school (perhaps the valedictorian) and those involved with the school admin. Then her laywers show how the school did nothing to investigate hetero-parents. (Of course, this is all speculation.) I smell big ratings for Court TV!
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Well, the girl's court case should be a doozy. Imagine if/when she gets a PI to dig up all the adultory dirt on parents whose children are in the school (perhaps the valedictorian) and those involved with the school admin. Then her laywers show how the school did nothing to investigate hetero-parents. (Of course, this is all speculation.) I smell big ratings for Court TV! 451711[/snapback] I'm pretty sure the policy DOES NOT say that one parent must be without sin.... Pursuing a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the church teachings is totally different. Even then, they only require one parent to not be engaged in these activities.
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I'm pretty sure the policy DOES NOT say that one parent must be without sin.... Pursuing a lifestyle that is in direct conflict with the church teachings is totally different. Even then, they only require one parent to not be engaged in these activities. 451726[/snapback] I'm dumbfounded (please notice "founded" after "dumb"). didn't you just post: "Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences." ????????????????? THAT is in direct conflict, or so their policy states. Track the adultorers down. BURN the WITCH!
TheMadCap Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Seems like a pretty clear-cut case of descrimination hiding behind a religeous subtext, to me. 451699[/snapback] If it was a gov't funded school, then yes. In this case, that would be a big NO. THey are a private org. They can discriminate if they want to. I also think the article said they would not be appealing or taking anyone to court.
TheMadCap Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I'm dumbfounded (please notice "founded" after "dumb"). didn't you just post: "Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences." ????????????????? THAT is in direct conflict, or so their policy states. Track the adultorers down. BURN the WITCH! 451733[/snapback] I would say that they could expel someone based on this if they chose too...
SDS Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I'm dumbfounded (please notice "founded" after "dumb"). didn't you just post: "Which pretty much states that if both parents are heteros shacking up with other people - they would face similar consequences." ????????????????? THAT is in direct conflict, or so their policy states. Track the adultorers down. BURN the WITCH! 451733[/snapback] Meaning cohabitation w/o being married. The rest of your comments just indicate the level of hostility you have towards this subject. Clearly, they should listen to YOU as they decide how to conduct their business.
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 I would say that they could expel someone based on this if they chose too... 451737[/snapback] My point was, if the girls family decided to fight this they just might find that some (MANY?) of their very holy heterosexual parents (and/or administrators) do indeed violate the policy. They also might find the school does little (nothing?) to find out if that is the case. IMO, that would make for fun viewing on Court TV...or just plain fun to follow in the papers. (In the above "might" = "undoubtedly would")
The Dean Posted September 23, 2005 Posted September 23, 2005 Meaning cohabitation w/o being married. The rest of your comments just indicate the level of hostility you have towards this subject. Clearly, they should listen to YOU as they decide how to conduct their business. 451739[/snapback] I think it's clear this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with morality. It is the simpliest form of discrimination...plain and simple. It's hate mongering at its most primal and basic. They may have the right to be pin-headed, homo-hating, hiding-behind-religion bigots. And I have a right (nay, a NEED) to point it out and laugh at them and uncover their hypocrisy.
Recommended Posts