Child expelled from Catholic School because parents are gay

[Mokie7]

I'm religious too, but I say: have at it. These bigots don't represent me.

[The God Hunter]

Noogie

AngelSlayer The Elder

How the hell does this decision confuse the parents? What made them think that the rules the Catholics laid out applied to every other parent...but them?
The Catholics have long held the belief and practice to hate the sin, not the sinner, and practicing homosexuals won't get a pass at their private schools.
This isn't a secular issue. This is a religious issue, and they have the right to do so.

Wasn't there something about not holding people accountable for the sins of their fathers? Not a political point really, but it just adds to my belief that religion is bullcrap.

Two words original sin
@divorce
Divorce has always been a gray zone among the papal hierarchy they have condoned it but it is frowned upon.

[Wendigo]

...Eh? The Catholic church doesn't permit divorce. It's basically considered a form of serial infidelity. In a worst case scenario, annulments can be granted, in which case the marriage isn't dissolved, it's treated as though it had never happened. (I don't personally see a difference, but whatever.)

Somebody who got divorced/remarried didn't do so under the auspices of the Catholic church, in any case.

[Mokie7]

Yeah..... might remember somebody by the name of King Henry VIII.
That was a biggie.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Most people don't exactly advertise their contraceptive methods publicly. Sexuality, when in a relationship is an entirely different issue, as it is extremely difficult to hide being with a member of the same sex.

So if it was revealed that a married couple used pills/condoms, you would have the same opinion if the school told them and their kid to GTFO?

Yep. I don't view them as bigots, either. It is simply what they believe based upon their religious beliefs.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Mokie7

But if they're gonna expel a child for their sinning parents, then why don't they expel other children for their sinning parents?

They DIDN'T expel them. They simply won't let them continue after this school year. Big difference.

[Omnileech]

AngelSlayer The Elder

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Most people don't exactly advertise their contraceptive methods publicly. Sexuality, when in a relationship is an entirely different issue, as it is extremely difficult to hide being with a member of the same sex.

So if it was revealed that a married couple used pills/condoms, you would have the same opinion if the school told them and their kid to GTFO?

Yep. I don't view them as bigots, either. It is simply what they believe based upon their religious beliefs.

Because a basic tenant of Christianity is not associating with anyone with values the slightest bit different from yours.

[Ash_Strife]

As stupid as this is, I suppose they have every right to kick the kid out. Albeit bigoted. Why is this in politics though?

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Omnileech

AngelSlayer The Elder

GunsmithKitten

Quote:

Most people don't exactly advertise their contraceptive methods publicly. Sexuality, when in a relationship is an entirely different issue, as it is extremely difficult to hide being with a member of the same sex.

So if it was revealed that a married couple used pills/condoms, you would have the same opinion if the school told them and their kid to GTFO?

Yep. I don't view them as bigots, either. It is simply what they believe based upon their religious beliefs.

Because a basic tenant of Christianity is not associating with anyone with values the slightest bit different from yours.

Not even close to what it says.

[Vercingetorix VII]

Rejecting the sinner in any manner is strictly against the teachings of Christianity.

Quote:

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 9:10-13, KJV.

Of course, Jesus also condemns any divorce not caused by adultery, saying that those that divorce and get remarried in such cases are in fact committing adultery themselves.

So divorced and remarried couples, or parents that work on the Sabbath, both of which are cardinal sins, are okay, but if you violate a rogue passage of Leviticus, boy are you in trouble.

Here, people:

STOP CALLING THESE PEOPLE CHRISTIAN. They're not doing jack s**t "because it's what their religion says". They're doing exactly what they want to do and nothing more or less.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Vercingetorix VII

Rejecting the sinner in any manner is strictly against the teachings of Christianity.

Quote:

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 9:10-13, KJV.

Of course, Jesus also condemns any divorce not caused by adultery, saying that those that divorce and get remarried in such cases are in fact committing adultery themselves.

So divorced and remarried couples, or parents that work on the Sabbath, both of which are cardinal sins, are okay, but if you violate a rogue passage of Leviticus, boy are you in trouble.

Here, people:

STOP CALLING THESE PEOPLE CHRISTIAN. They're not doing jack s**t "because it's what their religion says". They're doing exactly what they want to do and nothing more or less.

See, here's where you're making the biggest error, Verc. Had they spoken ill of the parents, I'd be on your side. They didn't. They honored the tenet of hate the sin, not the sinner.
If one of the women married a man and returned to the Church, she'd be welcomed back in with her family, and no mention of it.
You're making the standard error of thinking christians operate on the Fred Phelps attitude, which, to a degree, some do, but not all.

[Amongst_many]

Hate the sin of giving a kid an education?

[Vercingetorix VII]

AngelSlayer The Elder

Vercingetorix VII

Rejecting the sinner in any manner is strictly against the teachings of Christianity.

Quote:

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 9:10-13, KJV.

Of course, Jesus also condemns any divorce not caused by adultery, saying that those that divorce and get remarried in such cases are in fact committing adultery themselves.

So divorced and remarried couples, or parents that work on the Sabbath, both of which are cardinal sins, are okay, but if you violate a rogue passage of Leviticus, boy are you in trouble.

Here, people:

STOP CALLING THESE PEOPLE CHRISTIAN. They're not doing jack s**t "because it's what their religion says". They're doing exactly what they want to do and nothing more or less.

See, here's where you're making the biggest error, Verc. Had they spoken ill of the parents, I'd be on your side. They didn't. They honored the tenet of hate the sin, not the sinner.
If one of the women married a man and returned to the Church, she'd be welcomed back in with her family, and no mention of it.
You're making the standard error of thinking christians operate on the Fred Phelps attitude, which, to a degree, some do, but not all.

Jesus didn't associate with former prostitutes and ex-tax colletors, so the notion that Christianity compels disassociation with sinners is flat-out wrong, whether or not you're playing the semantical hate the whatever game. Christ compelled his followers to mingle with those who lived in sin- including tax collectors and bankers, whom I bet the Catholic institute in question isn't persecuting.

They are hypocrites and pharisees and nothing more. They are practicing the exact sort of behavior that Jesus condemned; pious admonitions of others with a lack of introspection, consistency or attempt at actually changing anything.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Vercingetorix VII

AngelSlayer The Elder

Vercingetorix VII

Rejecting the sinner in any manner is strictly against the teachings of Christianity.

Quote:

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Matthew 9:10-13, KJV.

Of course, Jesus also condemns any divorce not caused by adultery, saying that those that divorce and get remarried in such cases are in fact committing adultery themselves.

So divorced and remarried couples, or parents that work on the Sabbath, both of which are cardinal sins, are okay, but if you violate a rogue passage of Leviticus, boy are you in trouble.

Here, people:

STOP CALLING THESE PEOPLE CHRISTIAN. They're not doing jack s**t "because it's what their religion says". They're doing exactly what they want to do and nothing more or less.

See, here's where you're making the biggest error, Verc. Had they spoken ill of the parents, I'd be on your side. They didn't. They honored the tenet of hate the sin, not the sinner.
If one of the women married a man and returned to the Church, she'd be welcomed back in with her family, and no mention of it.
You're making the standard error of thinking christians operate on the Fred Phelps attitude, which, to a degree, some do, but not all.

Jesus didn't associate with former prostitutes and ex-tax colletors, so the notion that Christianity compels disassociation with sinners is flat-out wrong, whether or not you're playing the semantical hate the whatever game. Christ compelled his followers to mingle with those who lived in sin- including tax collectors and bankers, whom I bet the Catholic institute in question isn't persecuting.

They are hypocrites and pharisees and nothing more. They are practicing the exact sort of behavior that Jesus condemned; pious admonitions of others with a lack of introspection, consistency or attempt at actually changing anything.

I'd agree to a degree. I pretty much avoid discussing the Catholic church. Most organizations such as this, while they do talk to anyone that wants to, do not allow nor condone those that practice sins around the kiddies.
Again, had they spoken ill of the parents, I'd have major issues. They didn't. And I'll say it again to you, in a different way. This is like a 'reformed alcoholic' showing up at an AA meeting with a case of beer.
It may not have everyone hate him, but they are certainly going to make sure the beer goes back out the door.

[Mokie7]

AngelSlayer The Elder

See, here's where you're making the biggest error, Verc. Had they spoken ill of the parents, I'd be on your side. They didn't. They honored the tenet of hate the sin, not the sinner.

While embracing many other sins.
They're using their religion to defend their bigotry. That's it.

On another note: we'd better hope none of those kids or their parents or the staff or faculty are wearing clothes made from more than one type of fabric.