So what.

This has stunned many Catholics.

Catholic schools educate Protestants, Muslims, etc. but this school's decided to draw a line, making the child a weapon in their 'culture' war.

I think it's a good thing this happened now rather than having this hatred permeate the child slowly, doing more damage.

This kid will be better off. As a pvt school they can do whatever they want. In public school he hopefully won't turn out to be a spoiled overgrown child like RIR.

"Catholic schools educate Protestants, Muslims, etc. but this school's decided to draw a line, making the child a weapon in their 'culture' war."

This is true. I went to catholic school with a few Greek Orthodox kids, a couple of Baptists. They were actually better at the catechism because they treated it as just like any other class, while most of us catholics treated it as something to rebel against.

That said, I'm not sure I'd want to enroll my child in a school that took a very vocal opposition to who I was.

Seems like both the parents and the school are using this child as a political football.

"Seems like both the parents and the school are using this child as a political football."

Same thing happened at my old school about five years ago.

School Adopts Anti-Gay "Morality Code"
St. John the Baptist, an Orange County, California Catholic elementary school, has adopted a policy banning gay parents of students from coming to campus or functions together. The policy bars people from "giving witness to a lifestyle that is in conflict with the morality of the Gospel." The decision comes as a response to a group of parents who urged the Costa Mesa school to ban any more same-sex couples from enrolling their children after two gay men enrolled their twin sons at the school last year.

" . . . two gay men enrolled their twin sons . . . "

Whatever. Lesbian parents, gay parents--somehow methinks there was a lab involved, and some kind of juice from the opposite sex. Unless I'm behind the times again.

We have a recently divorced couple at our Catholic school (3 years ago) where she is now in a same sex relationship. It appears to be an amicable(sp) divorce and the kids still attend (4th and 1st grade).

I don't know if her "status" has been proclaimed officially by her or him either though. It is just common knowledge.

"somehow methinks there was a lab involved, and some kind of juice from the opposite sex."

what's your point?

"Whatever. Lesbian parents, gay parents--somehow methinks there was a lab involved, and some kind of juice from the opposite sex."

There's also this new concept called adoption. They call those folks parents as well, although RiR would never think of disparaging people like that.

Posts 2,4, and 5 are the same reason that I do not understand the schools decision, although I understand that as a private school they have the right to do that.

I liked the quote in the article that spoke to the fact that the school does not have any other morality quotient to find out whether families are divorced, or any other such open lifestyle sins.

Then there is the point that these parents may not yet understand what it is that they are getting into in terms of Catholicism or Christianity in a broader perspective. They might not be at the point where they understand their lifestyle in the same way that the Catholic church thinks they should be understanding it at the current point in time.

It takes time for people to change if they desire to change in that way. You can't expect people to be perfect even after they have been in Christ for their entire life, let alone when they just walk in the doors.

I however do not understand why people continue to get their children put into a system that seems as though would make their life harder if they did get the judgment to get them in. Why fight to get into a system that wants you out, and will still want you out when you get in?

"The policy bars people from "giving witness to a lifestyle that is in conflict with the morality of the Gospel.""

However, it gladly welcomes thieves, murderers, liars, adulterers, and coveters.

"Whatever. Lesbian parents, gay parents--somehow methinks there was a lab involved, and some kind of juice from the opposite sex."

There's also this new concept called adoption. They call those folks parents as well, although RiR would never think of disparaging people like that.

#9 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 10:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is true. One thing I don't understand, if they wanted children so bad, why not marry a person of the opposite sex and love them?

#11 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think it is speaking of a more openly defiant sense of lifestyle in conflict with the Gospel.

This is true. One thing I don't understand, if they wanted children so bad, why not marry a person of the opposite sex and love them?

#12 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

If the situation was reversed would you marry someone of the same sex?

Lets say the school grants the child admission, and the child truly adopts the faith as the church presents it. Wouldn't that make things difficult at home?

Moms: "What did you learn in school today, honey?"

Daughter: "That you're an abomination damning yourself to an eternity in hell. Where's my milk and cookies, sinners?

"these parents may not yet understand what it is that they are getting into in terms of Catholicism or Christianity in a broader perspective."

That, or they could have read the Beatitudes, and "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and thought that was the broader perspective.

One thing I don't understand, if they wanted children so bad, why not marry a person of the opposite sex and love them?
#12 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-03-08 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

And here we go again. You're right, you don't understand.

Hag #4,

How have you not been run out of here? You and your coherent thoughts and reasonable positions. You don't even sound like you're red-faced and spraying spittle on your monitor. Somebody needs to take you down a notch!

" openly defiant sense of lifestyle in conflict with the Gospel."

Where does the Gospel specifically denounce gays?

And are their any divorced parents in the pack?

However, it gladly welcomes thieves, murderers, liars, adulterers, and coveters.

yeah, but do they openly admit it? you know, like wear a sign around their neck? LOL

seriously though, it's absurd. I don't know why these parents would even want their child there.

And I challenge the Church on the same ground you pointed out as well.

not a good fit.

"I don't think they interview to see what parents are divorced or what parents are using birth control or other things that are against the teaching of the Catholic Church,"

From the article.

This must be happening in one of those anti-gay states like Texas, or Missippi or Arkansas.

Oh wait, it's happening in the "enlightened" city of Boulder, Colorado.

LOL

"I don't know why these parents would even want their child there."

My old school compromised and allowed the adopted boys to attend. Not saying denying both parents to attend functions at the same time was fair and balanced, but it is what it it is.

I misspelled Mississippi on purpose to make my point.

-(:

"I think it's a good thing this happened now rather than having this hatred permeate the child slowly, doing more damage."

Thank you for this pompous posturing! I had a great belly laugh. So when did trying to adhere to a certain morality become "hatred?"

#14 | Posted by jackass at 2010-03-08 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Jackass, if that was the natural means of child birth, the way to have children and I wanted children, I would have to 1. Go with that route, 2. Not have children, or 3. Adopt, but I would rather have a child of my own if I were physically capable of it.

Also in regard to Hag, I understand it is a principle thing, but I don't see why you would want your child to potentially undergo harsher treatment just so you can communicate a principle.

Yes it needs to change, but they might want to not put their child through hell just to make a point. They can always get another private school that is not religiously oriented, get another school that would allow their child to attend, or find an adequate public school for the child to attend.

"I don't know why these parents would even want their child there."

Maybe it is one of the better schools in the area (thanks No Child Left Behind).

Maybe it is one of the better schools in the area (thanks No Child Left Behind).

in Boulder, Colorado?

doubtful

in Boulder, Colorado?

doubtful

Have you ever lived there? I have.

And you are saying the public schools are bad?

crime, ghettos etc...

it is a very nice city from what I have seen and the largest employer is a major university.

What I am saying is that "No Child Left Behind" and the voucher programs took students away from public schools and gave the funding to private schools, most of which were religious in nature. It is very possible that this school is the best in the area due to the switch.

And you are saying the public schools are bad?

crime, ghettos etc

There are many factors that lead to a school failing under NCLB.

"That said, I'm not sure I'd want to enroll my child in a school that took a very vocal opposition to who I was."

Voice of reason. I suspect that these parents were more concerned about forcing an issue than they were about a quality education for the child.

Its hard to tell if the school is just being shitty or if they have reason to question the motive of these women in enrolling the child in this school in the first place. Doesn't seem logical that lesbians would want to enroll their kid in this school and if I were running the school and had reason to believe that their motive is to take issue with the beliefs being taught in the school, I would reject the kid too. But the quotes from the church seem to indicate they are just being assholes.

How have you not been run out of here? You and your coherent thoughts and reasonable positions. You don't even sound like you're red-faced and spraying spittle on your monitor. Somebody needs to take you down a notch!
#18 | Posted by ChezWegro

Not for anyone's lack of trying, Chez. Though I admit that there isn't much room here for someone who attempts to cut the baby in half. Bad analogy for the thread admitted.

When liberals support school choice--and therefore allow private schools access to tax dollars (should they want that access lest it come with the government oversight in schools that is working so well today)--then the complaint might be valid. Until then, its a matter for the private institution to settle as it sees fit.

Not for anyone's lack of trying, Chez. Though I admit that there isn't much room here for someone who attempts to cut the baby in half. Bad analogy for the thread admitted.

#34 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-08 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Sounds like a Bible Story to me.

Two women, one baby.

"What I am saying is that "No Child Left Behind" and the voucher programs took students away from public schools and gave the funding to private schools, most of which were religious in nature."

Wrong. MOST are NOT religious in nature...although I agree that "no Child Left Behind" sucks. Here is a list of the Boulder Area Corsortium of Independent Schools.

Wrong. MOST are NOT religious in nature...

Most Nationally were. Your link does not show what schools got what students or how many due to vouchers, so your link is a moot point really.

Religion corrupts the mind.

Your link does not show what schools got what students or how many due to vouchers, so your link is a moot point really.

perhaps he should have just inserted words like "maybe" and "perhaps" or hold up "NCLB" as a reason why this couple has no other choices.....which we don't even know.

Again, this is Boulder, CO. I'm sure there are options out there.....maybe not as cheap as this school. Although, we don't even know if the public schools are bad.

unless you can provide a link that say so....

"Though I admit that there isn't much room here for someone who attempts to cut the baby in half."

LOL...you evidently don't log onto the DR with the right mindset. You have to address your keyboard with the attitude that, "I'm going to amuse myself for a while." It's OK to be serious once in a while, but the real value in the DR is merely the entertainment value.

#39 | Posted by jackass at 2010-03-08 11:15 AM | Reply | Flag: so says the admitted psycho

I am not a psycho. I have psychotic episodes when unmedicated. Big difference.

"Most Nationally were. Your link does not show what schools got what students or how many due to vouchers, so your link is a moot point really."

So was your original statement...and the first three words of this one.

perhaps he should have just inserted words like "maybe" and "perhaps"

Yeah, he should have. I say this school may be the best and he lists all the schools to prove what?

I suspected as much, jackass.

"Sounds like a Bible Story to me."

Speaking of, have you found any passages in the Gospel where Jesus specifically disparages gays?

What I am saying is that "No Child Left Behind" and the voucher programs took students away from public schools and gave the funding to private schools, most of which were religious in nature."

No Jest. You took this statement to mean "only in Boulder." I never said location. What I said was correct. How you read it is not.

I am not a psycho. I have psychotic episodes when unmedicated. Big difference.

okay....whatever you say. You are the guy at work people have to ignore for fear you will come in with an gun and start offing everyone.

"LOL...you evidently don't log onto the DR with the right mindset."

Probably. Its been an issue for me lately.

"I am not a psycho. I have psychotic episodes when unmedicated. Big difference."

Unfortunately, there is no GLeeMONEX for stupid, Jackass.

Hey Dan, I know you like to argue this point, but I put of something in defense of these individuals being able to be involved with not only the school but the church and "Christianity"

It is no surprise that you did not pick that up.

All sins are viewed the same in the subjective sense of sin, however, objectively if the sin is intentionally, continuous and defiant, with no repentance, it becomes a problem, and something that needs to be addressed. That is why Jesus commonly uses words of continuence in terms of a negative action. an Idolater, fornicator, etc., not "one who has practiced idolatry", but rather one who continue to practice.

To become knowledgeable about a sin and still continue to defiantly practice is a different story than if you are new to the faith and working to get something under control.

The willingness to continue in the unaccepted behavior is the problem. That is sometimes what separated the aspect of divorce from homosexuality. Divorce can be once and be a mistake, so can homosexuality. However if someone continues to get divorce or says they do not care about what the church or school thinks about divorce, they would be continuing and therefore Jesus would have a problem with that. Same with homosexuality

This is the stance of Jesus, not me. However, it is not to go over to the children. They can admit the child while still make it known that the parents actions are not acceptable in accordance to their profession.

3.... 2.... 1....
What conclusion will Danforth jump to without trying to understand what I am saying?

"I say this school may be the best and he lists all the schools to prove what?"

Maybe not "all" the private schools are on the list, but the ones that belong to that consortium. the point being that there were plenty of options, not religious, and "best" is a connotative word which means different things to differnt people. Personally, I wouldn't think it's "best" to subject my child to what they have. Hagbard had it right.

"No Jest. You took this statement to mean "only in Boulder."

No, I didn't. I just don't blindly accept your blanket statement that most schools receiving funds were religious oriented. INDEPENDENT private schools vastly outnumber religious ones nationwide as they do in Boulder. I only linked to Boulder because that's the city in question here.

"What conclusion will Danforth jump to without trying to understand what I am saying?"

Why do you say one thing, and when called on it, backpedal to somewhere else? Here are your exact words:

"I think it is speaking of a more openly defiant sense of lifestyle in conflict with the Gospel."

I asked where, specifically, in the Gospel, Jesus denigrates gays. You've yet to answer directly.

"This is the stance of Jesus"

Where, regarding gays? Chapter and Verse, please.

Unfortunately, there is no GLeeMONEX for stupid, Jackass.

#51 | Posted by ChezWegro

Says a guy who goes by the name Cheese Whiz

"Divorce can be once and be a mistake, so can homosexuality."

Huh? How is continuing to have sex with your second wife different than continuing to have sex with a same-gender partner?

Feel free to use Mark 10 in your answer.

I loved Brain Candy and we need more Kids in the Hall movies.

"Says a guy who goes by the name Cheese Whiz"

Wow, someone with wit like that couldn't be stupid... I'm sorry Jackass.

Maybe if you snort another line of seroquel, Mensa will give you a call.

Divorce can be once and be a mistake, so can homosexuality.

damn, I missed that part of his post.

good grief.

"How is continuing to have sex with your second wife different than continuing to have sex with a same-gender partner?"

Please pardon me for intruding here, Danny, but I happened across this question and I had a revelation. Now I know why you are the way you are. Did you flunk biology or you honestly don't know the difference? There are some great porno sites you can find which will kinda portray the difference for you though. Just browse around and the answer will become apparent.

Not for anyone's lack of trying, Chez. Though I admit that there isn't much room here for someone who attempts to cut the baby in half. Bad analogy for the thread admitted.

#34 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-08 11:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Danforth, this is not my position that Jesus denigrates gays specifically in terms of the gospel, that is what the school is speaking of. So I explained what they were probably meaning, in that it is the defiance that is spoken of. The Gospel is not simply Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Gospel means Good news. The Gospel of Christ is the good news of Christ.

Christ condemns continuing sin, if you continue to openly practice sin, you are not loving Christ or following Christ, but living in deviance of His commands.

homosexuality is spoken of as sin in other parts of the scripture, and therefore, if continual and defiantly done so, it would be an issue over and above a sin that someone commits, repents of and makes every attempt not to commit that sin again.

I do not know how you cannot understand that.

You usually do exhibit futility in understanding the objective point that someone is making, as you rather focus on small bits and pieces of what they say, which you contort into a context they were not presented in.

IN terms of the divorce, it would be better if they did not get re-married, however if they do get re-married and they are really repentant of it (which would mean they stay with this second spouse and do not get divorce again as long as it is within their control to do so, and if they do get divorce again, that they would stay single) then it would be different than someone who does not care and continues to have sex with their partner of the same sex, knowing that their actions are not in accordance with the scripture or group they are professing to believe in.

If they are going to continue with their methodology for the homosexual couple, they should make sure that they have an avid stance against divorce and people who have been divorce and re-married, especially if they have been divorced and remarried more than 1 time.

I can't help what the Catholic church says about the homosexuals and the Gospel. I am just trying to present an idea of what they might be trying to get at with the whole lifestyle against the gospel comment.

No need to get pissy with me because I am trying to understand where they are coming from, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.

I do not stand behind the churches original dismissal of the family and the child. If the family and the child eventually claim to hold to the teachings of the scripture, then I can understand them speaking to the parents about the issue, but not barring the child.

Oops, should have been number 55 and 57 mentioned in the last post, not Hags post.

Either way...

Dan in regard to your "This is the stance of Jesus", I did not say that the homosexuality view of the catholic church was directly the stance of Jesus. you try to make it appear that way with you little copy and paste out of context, but I was referring to the continuation of sin

The continuation of sin is not indicative of desiring to follow Christ. If you know it is wrong and yet still defiantly continue it, it is not good.

"I was referring to the continuation of sin"

Then answer the question about continuing to have sex with your second wife after you've divorced your first.

"you try to make it appear that way with you little copy and paste out of context"

I quoted you exactly. Twice.

Either show where Jesus specifically disparaged gays in the Gospel, or admit you were talking out your ass.

"The Gospel is not simply Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."

It is in the Catholic Church.

"homosexuality is spoken of as sin in other parts of the scripture"

So is eating shellfish. Does the school also bar kids whose parents frequent Red Lobster?

Exps,

I apologize for #64. I hadn't read your post #62. Sorry.

"Does the school also bar kids whose parents frequent Red Lobster?"

They should be banned for bad taste.

Danforth,

I appreciate your position with regard to equal rights for homosexuals.

However, I think you should draw the line on this effort with regard to Religious institutions.

unless you are just fucking with Exp for my pleasure to watch.

if so....then carry on..

""Does the school also bar kids whose parents frequent Red Lobster?"
They should be banned for bad taste."

Amen

"I think you should draw the line on this effort with regard to Religious institutions"

Huh? Why shouldn't they, above all, practice what Jesus preached? You know, that "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Do Unto Others" stuff??? Their Instruction Book says we're all sinners. But this school wants to pick and choose which "sinners" they wish to ignore, and which they choose to punish. Could anything be further from Jesus' teachings?

Why shouldn't they, above all, practice what Jesus preached?

because they can.

You know, that "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Do Unto Others" stuff???

they can ignore at will.

Their Instruction Book says we're all sinners. But this school wants to pick and choose which "sinners" they wish to ignore, and which they choose to punish. Could anything be further from Jesus' teachings?

well, they can do it on for their own reasons.

again, save your advocacy for homosexual's rights for public policy and not worry about the admission policy of a Catholic School.

"because they can."

Lousy answer, really.

"they can do it on for their own reasons."

But those reasons directly contradict Jesus' teachings. Shouldn't those doing it in His name be shining examples?

"save your advocacy for homosexual's rights for public policy and not worry about the admission policy of a Catholic School."

Remind me...do Catholic Schools have a tax exemption, or not?

But those reasons directly contradict Jesus' teachings. Shouldn't those doing it in His name be shining examples?

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

What about making sure that those who they are admitting are practicing Jesus teachings. To continue in a sin, regardless of what it is, is not in line which Jesus' teaching.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Probably.

"However, the Archdiocese of Denver did issue this statement:

To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment."
==========

DADT

Remind me...do Catholic Schools have a tax exemption, or not?

#73 | Posted by Danforth
===========

Don't forget direct funds from the gov't

I repost this from the article to counter the Archdiocese of Denver

"I don't think they interview to see what parents are divorced or what parents are using birth control or other things that are against the teaching of the Catholic Church,"

And that is the problem. The Catholic church does not enforce its other issues like this one.

Think about all the politicians that stand for abortion and yet are Catholic. They are powerful allies so they cannot be dealt with in any real manner.

Same thing with the parents who are divorce, have no problem with being divorced etc. The divorce mentality is probably the next most noticeable offense of things they mention.

As the birth control issue would be harder to tell

"But those reasons directly contradict Jesus' teachings. Shouldn't those doing it in His name be shining examples?"

Much of the Old Testament contradicts Jesus' teachings if not directly then definitely in spirit. Old Testament God certainly was no Christian. The reason why the Old Testament is still in high regard is because Christ was not very pragmatic. Being a pacifist who forgives any and all wrongs against you as soon as they occur is just fine for the son of God but a bit problematic for us humans - especially for parents who also must protect and provide for their children.

Christians shunning gays isn't a unique contradiction. The Bible is full of contradictions.

Lousy answer, really.

it's all I got. but it's true.

Remind me...do Catholic Schools have a tax exemption, or not?

what do you mean....as a "non-profit" status?

so?

are you suggesting that religious based organizations have to throw their "religion" out to satisfy whoever wants admission?

A religion and it's affiliated operations should be able to include/exclude as long as they do not accept funds from the gov't.

Wash. DC just passed a same sex marriage law the Archdiocese just dropped new hire spousal benefits...
===============

"The Archdiocese of Washington's social service branch will stop offering benefits to spouses of new employees in a bid to balance the District of Columbia's new same-sex marriage law with Catholic opposition to homosexuality.

Edward Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of Washington, informed the group's 850 employees of the change in a letter on Monday (March 1), two days before gay marriage is scheduled to become legal in the city.

We sincerely regret that we have to make this change," said Orzechowski, "but it is necessary to allow Catholic Charities to continue to provide essential services to the clients we serve in partnership with the District of Columbia while remaining consistent with the tenets of our religious faith."

Employees whose spouses or children are currently covered will not be affected by the new policy, Orzechowski said. The local Catholic Charities agency serves 120,000 people yearly in the District and five Maryland counties, according to the archdiocese."

Last month, Catholic Charities transferred its foster care program, including 43 children, 35 families and seven employees, to another provider, rather than potentially be forced to place children with gay couples.

"are you suggesting that religious based organizations have to throw their "religion" out to satisfy whoever wants admission?"

Why should my tax dollars support obvious discrimination? They're not barring remarrieds, so they can't truthfully claim it's about The Gospel. And isn't there something about bearing false witness? So therefore, shouldn't they also be barring themselves?

"What about making sure that those who they are admitting are practicing Jesus teachings."

How do they know?

"To continue in a sin, regardless of what it is, is not in line which Jesus' teaching."

So are they going to bar the folks who got divorced and remarried, or not? If not, then it's not about Jesus' teachings, no matter how much they lie about it. It's about discrimination.

Why should my tax dollars support obvious discrimination?

how is it?

So are they going to bar the folks who got divorced and remarried, or not?

maybe.....maybe not.

It's about discrimination.

yes, "legal" discrimination.

"Why should my tax dollars support obvious discrimination?"

The tax free status of the school is balanced by the fact that people who send kids to these schools still pay local taxes to fund public schools. The suggestion that people who send kids to these schools are somehow making out and on your dime is pretty silly.

"maybe.....maybe not."

I think you know better. They certainly weren't planning on it, but may get pressure to be consistent. Of course, what'll be really tough is when they get all the way to the bottom of The Big Ten, and have to toss out the coveters.

"yes, "legal" discrimination."

Gee...great. And all based on a guy who's central tenet was against discrimination. Then add the benefit of public tax dollars via a non-profit status. That, and the parents' tithes, which sometimes cover tuition, are deductible when other private school tuition wouldn't be.

"A religion and it's affiliated operations should be able to include/exclude as long as they do not accept funds from the gov't."

I'd consider a real estate tax exemption, and the allowance of donations to the religious organization as a deduction against taxable income on federal and state levels as "funds from the government", wouldn't you?

"Edward Orzechowski, president and CEO of Catholic Charities of Washington, informed the group's 850 employees of the change in a letter ..."

"Last month, Catholic Charities transferred its foster care program, including 43 children, 35 families and seven employees, to another provider, rather than potentially be forced to place children with gay couples."
==================

It's a business the church ditched the seven employee foster care program but kept the 850 employee social service branch program and only penalized new hires not everyone.

That is their right but does not seem to be consistent if you factor out the DC govt's funds for each program.

Then add the benefit of public tax dollars via a non-profit status. That, and the parents' tithes, which sometimes cover tuition, are deductible when other private school tuition wouldn't be.

yeah, but my $6500 in property taxes can be spent on other students and my children absorb any of that revenue.

we'll call it a wash.

If all Catholic Schools went to tuition then would you feel better then?

Danforth, I don't disagree with most of your position. I just think it is a waste of time to argue with a private, religious institution on who they want to accept.

Well what do you expect? Imagine if church officials went into a gay bar and demanded that they be allowed to preach against the sin of homosexuality.

You half-roosters want everyone to bow to your deviancy, and then seek the sympathy vote to get it done. Go back to your village!

"A religion and it's affiliated operations should be able to include/exclude as long as they do not accept funds from the gov't."

I'd consider a real estate tax exemption, and the allowance of donations to the religious organization as a deduction against taxable income on federal and state levels as "funds from the government", wouldn't you?
#89 | Posted by Danforth
======

That's the rub isn't, but a better case can be made for direct fund form gov't.

"we'll call it a wash."

When you can do what other's can't? Gee, how ecumenical of you.

"Danforth, I don't disagree with most of your position."

Thanks. I guess I just expect better from my Mother Religion.

"I just think it is a waste of time to argue with a private, religious institution on who they want to accept."

True, but they certainly deserve to be called out for their rank hypocrisy. This isn't about following the Gospel. It's about choosing who to discriminate against, and picking an easy target.

Who would Jesus deny?

"a better case can be made for direct fund form gov't."

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. No bottom-line difference at all.

It's a private school. I'm pretty sure that means that legally, they can admit people based on whatever arbitrary standards they choose (not that the decision is even remotely defensible).

Maybe these bible-thumping vermin don't want young, impressionable minds to see any firsthand evidence of flaws in catholic dogma. On second thought... you become aware of those the moment you realize that the earth goes around the sun. Maybe the catholics will admit that they were wrong on the whole gay thing a few centuries after the fact. If there is a catholic church, that is...

Maybe the catholics will admit that they were wrong on the whole gay thing a few centuries after the fact. If there is a catholic church, that is...

#96 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Yes, Lennon, Stalin, and Mao all said the same thing! In fact, most of history's tyrants have said the same! The *gay* tyranny is no different!

correction, Lenin

True, but they certainly deserve to be called out for their rank hypocrisy.

I knew a Priest who actually made a poster once that was titled "HYPOCRITES! WE COULD ALWAYS USE ONE MORE!"

When you can do what other's can't? Gee, how ecumenical of you.

it's a pretty good deal for the public school system actually.

#12 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION
"This is true. One thing I don't understand, if they wanted children so bad, why not marry a person of the opposite sex and love them?"

Because they're not ATTRACTED to a person of the opposite sex.
You've brought up this solution a number of times, and while it may seem "practical" to you, I think it's an outrage.
It places heterosexual marriage above natural love.
I think's it's extremely unfair to BOTH parties.
Love isn't just a switch to flip, it's a natural occurance, that can't be forced thru marriage or natural childbirth.

#94 | POSTED BY DANFORTH
"I guess I just expect better from my Mother Religion."

I agree, Danforth, but I'd say I "desire" more.
Expecting more may be too much.
Time will tell.

#68 | POSTED BY EBERLY
"I think you should draw the line on this effort with regard to Religious institutions."

That's the catch, I suppose.
As a private school, they can exclude whomever they like.
It'd be nice if it were otherwise, but hopefully there's another school the kid can attend that's to the parents' liking.

we'll call it a wash.
#91 | Posted by eberly
===========

Eb...it's is what it is but, it's not a wash... specifically if you consider property taxes. For every exempt dollar a storefront church in the city or a mega church on large acreage tracts gets it has to come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

#12 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION
"This is true. One thing I don't understand, if they wanted children so bad, why not marry a person of the opposite sex and love them?"

Because they're not ATTRACTED to a person of the opposite sex.
You've brought up this solution a number of times, and while it may seem "practical" to you, I think it's an outrage.
It places heterosexual marriage above natural love.
I think's it's extremely unfair to BOTH parties.
Love isn't just a switch to flip, it's a natural occurance, that can't be forced thru marriage or natural childbirth.

#101 | Posted by TheTom

Can you tell us what is natural about homosexual love as it pertains to conception of children?

In fact, most of history's tyrants have said the same!

The only tyrants who have not predicted the downfall of the Catholic church have been popes. Your point?

but, it's not a wash... specifically if you consider property taxes

I'm not sure we are making the same comparison.

If I do not send my kids to public schools and absorb that service and send my kids to a private school and then deduct my property taxes, just like my neighbor, who sends their kids to the public school, then the public school system makes out better with me than with my neighbor.

The *gay* tyranny...

...is a figment of Sabbatai's overactive imagination and fanatical devotion to an irrational set of beliefs.

"a better case can be made for direct fund form gov't."
Six of one, half-dozen of the other. No bottom-line difference at all.
#95 | Posted by Danforth
=============

The church is treated like all non-profits contribution wise, it's tax excempt to the contributor. Direct gov't funds should always come with conditions

...is a figment of Sabbatai's overactive imagination and fanatical devotion to an irrational set of beliefs.

#108 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Yeah, it's just a figment of my imagination how the militant (aka tyrannical) *gay* agenda is more and more demanding entrance into grade schools. And people like Kevin Jennings and his *gay* agenda is also just a figment of my imagination. And all those gay pride parades, with the in-your-face shock demonstrations seeking legitimacy are also just a figment of the imagination. And now they demand to raise children, and be married and have access to all those other *natural* things by which their deviancy seeks legitimation! Yep, it's only in my mind!

but, it's not a wash... specifically if you consider property taxes

I'm not sure we are making the same comparison.

If I do not send my kids to public schools and absorb that service and send my kids to a private school and then deduct my property taxes, just like my neighbor, who sends their kids to the public school, then the public school system makes out better with me than with my neighbor.
#107 | Posted by eberly
====

Eb...it's about the shared tax burden through property taxes...if I do not have any children or have 30 children both you and your neighbor make out better than me. Tax excempt church property reduces that base.

#105 | POSTED BY SABBATAI
"Can you tell us what is natural about homosexual love as it pertains to conception of children?"

Don't be thick, Sab.
It doesn't pertain to the conception of children.
Figured you'd have learned that by now.

the militant (aka tyrannical) *gay* agenda is more and more demanding entrance into grade schools

No "agenda" is trying to get entrance into this school. A kid is. Only a complete fucking idiot couldn't distinguish between the two, and only an intellectually dishonest shitstain would deliberately confuse them. Which begs the question... which are you?

And all those gay pride parades, with the in-your-face shock demonstrations seeking legitimacy are also just a figment of the imagination

The parades are quite real. The evidence to back your argument that they are somehow "tyrannical" is not, however.

And now they demand to raise children, and be married and have access to all those other *natural* things

You have done nothing to demonstrate that any of these things are even remotely negative, let alone "tyrannical". Like most rabid homophobes, you are incapable of supporting your argument with anything more than hot air and delusions.

Yep, it's only in my mind!

That's the only thing you've posted here with a bit of truth in it. Your beliefs are inherently irrational. Nice to see you're not wasting time trying to justify them.

"it's a pretty good deal for the public school system actually."

I wasn't comparing it with the public school. I was comparing it to your neighbor who also sends his kids to a private school, but doesn't get to deduct the tuition by calling it a tithe.

It is just common knowledge.

#7 | Posted by eberly at 2010-03-08 10:30 AM | Reply

And great for gossip.

#15 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-08 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag: Southpark Fan.

I was comparing it to your neighbor who also sends his kids to a private school, but doesn't get to deduct the tuition by calling it a tithe.

I went to a private Catholic High School and none of the tuition was deductible.

"I went to a private Catholic High School and none of the tuition was deductible."

I went to a private Catholic Grade School and all of the tuition was via tithes.

(I also went to a private Catholic High School, btw....)

Danforth,

I hear what you are saying about tithes.

My bigger issue is - why is the public education system predominantly (a paltry amount of tax-deductible vs. free education tithes notwithstanding) the ONLY way to offer your children an education that has already been paid-for with your tax dollars?

I am about to be off to bed, but wouldn't the choice and competition of a 100% privatized system (with certain inherent drawbacks to be sure) provide better choice and overall better quality; particularly if it was a modification of our current system? By that I mean that in lieu of simply zoning into 1 'free' school based solely upon geography, a voucher would allow more choice for most parents and an overall better quality of education for a vast majority.

Granted, I just opened a HUGE can-of-worms and I am off to bed - just food for thought.

Utopia is an impossibility.

If we can achieve better overall education outcomes WITH the same, or more likely less, cost...does it not make sense to at least explore the possibilities?

And if the answer to that is 'Yes', then to hell with the teachers' unions. If they are that superior, then let them compete for it, prove it and earn it.

I went to a private Catholic Grade School and all of the tuition was via tithes.

(I also went to a private Catholic High School, btw....)

My parents paid both monthly tuition and tithed every Sunday. Back then it was about $35 a month and my mom volunteered for all school functions. Today I think it is ten times that much. The High School today is now as high as some colleges a year.

"wouldn't the choice and competition of a 100% privatized system (with certain inherent drawbacks to be sure) provide better choice and overall better quality"

Maybe, but you're trying to solve a $5000 problem with a $1000 solution. And it would just exacerbate the problems in the poorest neighborhoods. Besides, are you really going to stop collecting school taxes under the guise of property taxes from all the childless couples???

"because they can."

Lousy answer, really.

"they can do it on for their own reasons."

But those reasons directly contradict Jesus' teachings. Shouldn't those doing it in His name be shining examples?
#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 01:38 PM

Divorce can be once and be a mistake, so can homosexuality. However if someone continues to get divorce or says they do not care about what the church or school thinks about divorce, they would be continuing and therefore Jesus would have a problem with that.

I don't see the distinction. Divorce has been a huge deal in the Catholic church -- look at the folks who get annulments to avoid getting one, even when they had kids in the marriage.

If a Catholic school is going to discriminate against children with gay parents, how can they not do the same to divorced parents?

The Catholic hangup with gays is going to empty out the pews even more than they already are in this country.

True, but they certainly deserve to be called out for their rank hypocrisy. This isn't about following the Gospel. It's about choosing who to discriminate against, and picking an easy target.

Who would Jesus deny?

#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just for your information, Jesus would turn away anyone who truly and actually turned him away in terms of continuing to turn him away by not changing and adapting to follow what was best for their lives. If you continue to talk in the darkness, Jesus is going to turn you away. If you continue to make excuses as to why you are not following him, he will turn you away, but in actuality it is you who is turning yourself away in those cases.

Jesus may accept everyone, but based on peoples actions, they indicate whether they accept that acceptance or not.

"Just for your information, Jesus would turn away anyone who truly and actually turned him away in terms of continuing to turn him away by not changing and adapting to follow what was best for their lives. If you continue to talk in the darkness, Jesus is going to turn you away. If you continue to make excuses as to why you are not following him, he will turn you away, but in actuality it is you who is turning yourself away in those cases."

Thanks for reminding me why I don't go to church.

Thanks for reminding me why I don't go to church.
#126 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

My guess is that you wouldn't try to get your kids into a catholic school either. This puts you way ahead of the moms in this article.

"Thanks for reminding me why I don't go to church."

But you still have a shot at redemption so long as you never root against Notre Dame.

The Catholic hangup with gays is going to empty out the pews even more than they already are in this country.

The Catholic Church, like the GOP, are marginalizing themselves quite unnecessarily.

Be Well.

Well, yes and no, Jest. If I ever find myself rooting against Notre Dame I take certain precautions. I just fire up my legion of Santeria Seven Powers candles and let Elegua, Obatalia, Yemalia, Oya, Oshun, Shango, Ogum, Orunmila, and Babaluaye do the heavy lifting.

"The Catholic Church, like the GOP, are marginalizing themselves quite unnecessarily."

It is kind of ironic when libs rip on the Catholics, one of the, if not the largest charity organization in the world.

"I just fire up my legion of Santeria Seven Powers candles and let Elegua, Obatalia, Yemalia, Oya, Oshun, Shango, Ogum, Orunmila, and Babaluaye do the heavy lifting."

They have no power whatsoever when confronted by one of the Sisters of Mercy dressed in her habit!

"They have no power whatsoever when confronted by one of the Sisters of Mercy dressed in her habit!"

Don't forget the ruler, Jest. Never forget the ruler.

"They have no power whatsoever when confronted by one of the Sisters of Mercy dressed in her habit!"

Thanks for the Sisters of Mercy line. I haven't thought about Chick Hearn is quite some time. His favorite line was "The Sisters of Mercy could beat the Lakers right now..." Hope the jello is jiggling in Heaven Chick....

The Catholic Church, like the GOP, are marginalizing themselves quite unnecessarily.

Be Well.

#129 | Posted by dethspud

Yes, it's so unnecessary. If those dang catholics would just lighten up a bit, embrace the debris of human behavior, bless it and call it good, it could be so much better for the church. Less strife, less bad feelings, less discord from those who want their sin and eat it too!

Come on church, if I want to frack a horse, or my sister, or kid brother, or my neighbor's wife...etc., don't make me feel bad about myself by saying "NO!" It's just so unnecessary!

"embrace the debris of human behavior"

You mean...like Jesus would do???

"I want to frack a horse, or my sister, or kid brother, or my neighbor's wife.."

LOL. You really equate all of these with homosexuality, don't you?

You mean...like Jesus would do???

#136 | Posted by Danforth

Funny thing about Jesus, he embraced people where they were, in whatever their condition, and healed/forgave them.

Funny, we don't find Jesus embracing the adultress, then encouraging her to continue in her banging ways. Instead he says that so unnecessary thing: "Go and sin no more!"

So judgmental...so unnecessary!

"LOL. You really equate all of these with homosexuality, don't you?"

I suspect he's paraphrasing the "Do your own thing" and "If it feels good, do it" slogans of the 60's folks currently established in our universities and the current administration.

we don't find Jesus embracing the adultress, then encouraging her to continue in her banging ways

He sort of does by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This kind of tells the crowd we are all sinners in one way or another and all equal in his eyes.

He sort of does by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This kind of tells the crowd we are all sinners in one way or another and all equal in his eyes.

#140 | Posted by kanrei

Really? So if the adultress had been a thief, or a rapist, or a murderer, the point of the story is we are all equal and can continue in our ways, just don't tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong, because that's just so judgmental, so unnecessary.

Do you not understand nuance? Re-read what I said and then, if you think I am still saying what you think I said, go back to school and study the English language better. I will bold the parts you obviously missed.

He sort of does by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This kind of tells the crowd we are all sinners in one way or another and all equal in his eyes.

#135 | Posted by Sabbatai

Couple things here.

First, homosexuality is not a sin.

Second, bestiality, incest and adultery are not comparable to homosexuality.

Are you really that dumb or was that just a troll?

Be Well.

If those dang catholics would just lighten up a bit, embrace the debris of human behavior, bless it and call it good, it could be so much better for the church.

Catholics reject you too, Sabbatai?

He also repeatedly tells you NOT to judge others:

Judge not least ye be judged.

As you judge others so shall you be judged.

Worry about your own soul and your own sins.

we don't find Jesus embracing the adultress, then encouraging her to continue in her banging ways

He sort of does by saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This kind of tells the crowd we are all sinners in one way or another and all equal in his eyes.

#140 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-09 10:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

You hit it right when you used the words "sort of". That is sort of what he is saying, however he also says that anyone who looks to him and returns to his old ways is better not to have been born.

If you say you are going to change and you tell Jesus you are going to change, I would think you better change or expect to be called a hypocrite.

It is one thing to be accepted when you are screwing up because you don't know any better, but after you see that it is not necessary and actually having a negative effect on your life, you are supposed to correct the behavior, because after all, if you believe what he said, you would act on it. If you don't believe what he says, you will do what you like about what he says and disregard what you don't like.

That is the problem with the way that most people view Jesus and the Church.

They are both accepting, but there comes a point in time where you are expected to begin changing the things that are negative.

The big thing with "he who has no sin cast the first stone" is that those individuals were not repentant or seeking redemption either. they were in the same lost and unredeemed sinful state as the women, and therefore their punishment was just the same as hers.

Why should she have any different opportunity at redemption then they have?

However, once they come to know what the truth of the matter is, what the proper behavior is, they are expected to work to curtail their old ways as Jesus says "go and sin no more".

Yes he understands that you are going to screw up, but he does not accept you screwing up on purpose because you do not care about it.

"So if the adultress had been a thief, or a rapist, or a murderer, the point of the story is we are all equal and can continue in our ways, just don't tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong, because that's just so judgmental, so unnecessary."

Don't get Kanrei all pissed off or he'll take his football and go home and he'll never play with you again.

He also repeatedly tells you NOT to judge others:

Judge not least ye be judged.

As you judge others so shall you be judged.

Worry about your own soul and your own sins.

#145 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-09 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

This is incorrect you are to watch to make sure you don't make your brother stumble. You are to inform those who are stuck in sin and do not know it, you are to help them get out of their sin if they are unaware.

The judgment aspect being spoken of there is the final judgment of salvation or no salvation. You cannot know if someone who professed to be a "Christian" is a true "Christian" or not. You cannot deem someone with a profession to not have redemption, you cannot condemn someone with a profession to hell. That is not your judgment.

It is not saying that those who are in the same beliefs are not to exact good judgment in their behavior and the behavior of those who are claiming to be in the same body as they are.

You are not to allow someone representing Christ continue on in sinning without any kind of confrontation.

Believers in Christ are said to be in one body. To simply allow part of your body to destroy itself is not good stewardship or good judgment

Exp,

There is a separation between how those who have accepted Christ must behave and how those who have not.

You are not to allow someone representing Christ continue on in sinning without any kind of confrontation.

This is true in the eyes of the Congregation as the actions of one can call into question the actions of all, but I believe in the eyes of G-d, we are all equal. I also don't believe in a Heaven or Hell, but that, when we die, we return to G-d, so there is no eternal punishment to me either.

Jest,
As you are showing once again, it is not disagreement that ends my discussion, it is stupidity. You are too stupid to understand the written word and, as this is a blog, I have no other options to communicate with you.

#149 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-09 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

I understand what you are saying, but I think Christ stated that there were some kind of consequences for those who claimed to be following but really didn't care. To say it is going to be worse than Sodom and Gemorrah for them, even though they are going to die a natural death, indicates that there will be something taking place for their irresponsible and unfaithful behavior. At least a a time out when they arrive to dinner.

Just because God loves us all equally does not mean that he will not discipline some more harshly because they did not listen to clear instruction.

Couple things here.

First, homosexuality is not a sin.

Second, bestiality, incest and adultery are not comparable to homosexuality.

Are you really that dumb or was that just a troll?

Be Well.

#143 | Posted by dethspud

First, homosexuality IS a sin. If you're going to use the word "sin" you're using a biblical term. Note: The biblical term "sin" is used frequently when "homosexual behavior" is mentioned. Unless of course you're God and have changed your mind?

Second, who says you cannot compare homosexuality to these other sins? You? On what basis? Certainly not on the basis of scripture, the same scripture from which you co-opted the term "sin."

Exp,
That is where honestly comes in. I have been asked before why I hold Christians to a different standard that other people; why I accept behavior in some I do not in Christians, and your posts nails it. As a Jew, I am not required to follow any of Jesus' teaching nor should I be held to that standard, like the adulterer in the story, but the crowd was punishing her according to their beliefs, which Jesus pointed out they themselves were not following. We are only held to the standards we hold others to, thus: as you judge others, so shall ye be judged.

#12 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION
"This is true. One thing I don't understand, if they wanted children so bad, why not marry a person of the opposite sex and love them?"

Because they're not ATTRACTED to a person of the opposite sex.
You've brought up this solution a number of times, and while it may seem "practical" to you, I think it's an outrage.
It places heterosexual marriage above natural love.
I think's it's extremely unfair to BOTH parties.
Love isn't just a switch to flip, it's a natural occurance, that can't be forced thru marriage or natural childbirth.

#101 | Posted by TheTom at 2010-03-08 05:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think you are mixing love and attraction here Tom. As you can be attracted to someone you do not love and you can love someone whom you are not initially attracted to.

Love does not happen naturally, that mentality is why so many people who "naturally fell in love" have become divorced and bitterly hate one another.

Love is heavily centered upon actions and effort rather than attraction and emotions.

The emotions come out of the effort and the action that must be decidedly taken, not just happen magically or naturally.

To love in the midst of trial is difficult. If it were natural that would not be so.

Attraction is natural, love is not natural, love is a choice.

"As you are showing once again, it is not disagreement that ends my discussion, it is stupidity."

Oh, goody! You DO wanna play again, so....

You said the following to Expsredemption:

"Do you not understand nuance? Re-read what I said and then, if you think I am still saying what you think I said, go back to school and study the English language better."

That KIND OF, or maybe SORT OF, indicates to me someone else doesn't "understand" you. There's an old saw that says, "If a man calls you a jackass, ignore him. If several men call you a jackass, you should shop for a saddle."
The fact is, Kanrei, ol' pal, we understand you quite well and we think you are permanently "out to lunch."

You said the following to Expsredemption:

And you show you CAN'T read because I said it to Sabbatai, not Exp. Every time I address Exp, I start with "Exp,". Another swing and a miss. You really are too stupid to read.

Mea culpa...I should not have said "we" think you're out to lunch. I'm not sure what anyone else thinks, but I'm sure you know what I think...right?

BUT...you're a lotta fun and I would still play with you. See, I'm not a bit judgmental.

"And you show you CAN'T read because I said it to Sabbatai,..."

Ah, yes...that makes THREE! Thanks for pointing that out. (who is REALLY stupid here?)I know where you can get a deal on a saddle, pal.

but I'm sure you know what I think...right?

What you think? I am not even convinced you CAN think. =P

I know where you can get a deal on a saddle, pal.

Please keep me out of your perverted fantasies.

"Just because God loves us all equally does not mean that he will not discipline some more harshly because they did not listen to clear instruction."

So the old boy swaggers around, swinging an ugly stick and yearning to put the hurt on transgressors?

"Please keep me out of your perverted fantasies."

LOL...stop taking yourself so seriously, Kanrei. If you came here to impress and educate people, you're failing as badly as is DeadPud. Relax, enjoy the bantor and don't get so upset with folks.

Relax, enjoy the bantor and don't get so upset with folks.

You should follow my posts better. I think each of us is thinking we have caught the other in some troll trap.

"I think each of us is thinking we have caught the other in some troll trap."

I don't think you're a troll. I think you're serious about your convictions and maybe are easily upset when they aren't shared by others. I don't recall what caused me to respond to you the first time, but it was something that revealed to me where you keep your goat. One of my strictest rules is to never let anyone know where you keep your goat because some folks like to "get your goat." Peace...

I don't think you're a troll. I think you're serious about your convictions and maybe are easily upset when they aren't shared by others.

Then you can't think and don't pay attention.

Can't we all just get along?

This is so unnecessary!

I love that here is Jest saying "I think you're serious about your convictions" on a blog that Most people here call me a "Fence-sitter" without any convictions. ROFLMAO! You can't make this shit up!

Can't we all just get along?

This is so unnecessary!

This is actually the chief attraction of this place.

"Can't we all just get along?"

That wouldn't be any fun! Notice that Kanrei is ROFLMAO and is enjoying it. He says I can't think, but I can...I think he's so full of shit that he has a turd in every pocket. He's a load of laughs and I'm glad he's decided to play with me again.

"This is actually the chief attraction of this place."

WOW...I have to leave now while we are in agreement! Have fun, play nice...

Sabb,
Jest and I don't hate one another (I don't think). This is the game here and we have chosen to play it. It is what this place is all about. We argue, debate, troll, and fuck with one another to kill time. I think we are mostly all friends, regardless of how brutal we fight here. See how quick we defend one another when an outsider tries to start some shit here.

Actually I was being sarcastic, poking fun at Dethpud's claim that the catholic church, in it's position, is acting unnecessarily for taking a stand against perversion!

And then we all condemn the catholic church for doing far less than what we're doing to each other. LOL...LOL!!!

"Just because God loves us all equally does not mean that he will not discipline some more harshly because they did not listen to clear instruction."

So the old boy swaggers around, swinging an ugly stick and yearning to put the hurt on transgressors?

#160 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2010-03-09 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Doc, I think you have a misdirected perspective here. Tell me you do not discipline or punish your children in any way whatsoever in order to keep them from killing themselves or other, or harming themselves or others, or even doing something that will make their, or others lives more difficult that can be readily avoided.

It is kind of ironic when libs rip on the Catholics, one of the, if not the largest charity organization in the world.

Catholic churches are among the most opulent in any town. The Vatican and all the trappings of the church there contain astonishingly ostentatious displays of wealth. Though they may be charitable to others, the church manages to keep quite a bit back for the lifestyle to which it has become accustomed.

The child is likely better off than being educated by a system that is at least 100 years behind the mainstream socially. However, I question the motivations of the parents. My Sis-in-law is gay and VERY active on social issues for gays. Sometimes it seems like she purposely gets herself into situations to just to put it up in peoples faces that she is gay and that is fine but I sincerely hope these women are not doing this for the attention by involving a child. I'll have to follow this one a little closer.

-M

"Doc, I think you have a misdirected perspective here. Tell me you do not discipline or punish your children in any way whatsoever in order to keep them from killing themselves or other, or harming themselves or others, or even doing something that will make their, or others lives more difficult that can be readily avoided."

- If that is what god is doing, he has to be the worst "parent" ever! Wars, murder, rape, etc. etc. etc. nice job "dad"!

#172 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Have you got the big guy completely anthropomorphized? I mean, does he ever shave or trim his beard? Is he a metrosexual? What about Mrs. Claus?

Have you got the big guy completely anthropomorphized? I mean, does he ever shave or trim his beard? Is he a metrosexual? What about Mrs. Claus?

#176 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I'll bet the big guy has no dick, which will probably be a huge disappointment for those here whose entire being is determined by such things. This too, must have something to do with the *gay* gene!

#175 | Posted by boyracer_x at 2010-03-09 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Um.... boy racer, that would kind of be the child's fault in terms of human beings. God doesn't make you go to war, or kill, or lie, or break things, or anything else. You are the one that is proverbially raping and killing and warring and lying and deceiving, not God.

That would be what you would be punished or disciplined for. But I am sure that does not fit your personal outlook.

First, homosexuality IS a sin.

Sin, however, is a meaningless social construct that holier-than-thou fuckstains wave around when they want you to act a certain way but can't be troubled to justify their opinion with actual fact.

So, sabbatai... will you continue to spew forth more rambling superstitious nonsense, or will you take a stab at defending your obnoxious beliefs with something resembling a well-reasoned argument.

Proverbs 14:34 - Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

'nuff said. We are under judgment for many instances of national sin, Zombie. You will soon not be able to deny that.

We are under judgment for many instances of national sin, Zombie.

Indeed... our nation is under the judgment of an exceedingly arrogant group of self-righteous loons that have appointed themselves spokespeople for their imaginary friends. I'm not too concerned.

You will soon not be able to deny that.

People have only been saying that for the last couple thousand years...

It's about moral standards and their importance in society. Liberals worship nature in place of God.

Natural selection would treat gays the same way runts and the non-reproductive are treated, weeding them out as they do not advance the species. God says to be tolerant, yet discerning.

Natural selection would treat gays the same way runts and the non-reproductive are treated, weeding them out as they do not advance the species.

Gee, that would make sense if it weren't for that pesky fact that two straight people give birth to a gay person as there is no other way for the gay to reproduce. The fact that gay people ARE born proves that actually do have some purpose to the species or else, as you pointed out, they would have died off by now.

Liberals worship nature in place of God.

With a brush that broad, you could paint a mustache on Mt. Rushmore's presidents. But point taken... you think that liberals worship something that actually exists instead of a figment of their imaginations. Way to pay them a complement.

Natural selection would treat gays the same way runts and the non-reproductive are treated, weeding them out as they do not advance the species.

This is true if and only if homosexuality is a dominant, completely penetrant monogenetic trait that has uniformly high expressivity. In other words, there are only two forms of "the gay gene": the "straight" form and the "100% chance of being 100% gay" form. If this is not the case, then there are quite a few ways that a deleterious gene (from the standpoint of an individual's reproductive fitness) can be maintained in a population. Your gross oversimplification has little relevance to reality. Nice try. Come again later.

This is true if and only if homosexuality is a dominant, completely penetrant monogenetic trait that has uniformly high expressivity. In other words, there are only two forms of "the gay gene": the "straight" form and the "100% chance of being 100% gay" form. If this is not the case, then there are quite a few ways that a deleterious gene (from the standpoint of an individual's reproductive fitness) can be maintained in a population. Your gross oversimplification has little relevance to reality. Nice try. Come again later.

#184 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-03-09 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Are you saying that they are not intrinsically gay, but something outside of their genes "makes" them gay? Like they have a choice or something?

Like they have a choice or something?

I don't think there is a universal truth to this any more than hair color. Some people are born blonde, others choose to be, same with sexual orientation to make it way too simple.

"The willingness to continue in the unaccepted behavior is the problem. That is sometimes what separated the aspect of divorce from homosexuality. Divorce can be once and be a mistake, so can homosexuality. However if someone continues to get divorce or says they do not care about what the church or school thinks about divorce, they would be continuing and therefore Jesus would have a problem with that. Same with homosexuality"

Uh... you're not Catholic are you?

not sure what the big deal is. school sounds narrow minded and the parents probably should be happy not to send their kid there. the school is private and should be able to make this decision - although every time something like this happens, it'll be one step closer to having tax exempt status revoked for those who discriminate on sexual orientation...

Are you saying that they are not intrinsically gay, but something outside of their genes "makes" them gay? Like they have a choice or something?

Absolutely not. The poster I was replying to demonstrated a poor understanding of genetics and oversimplified things way too much. His oversimplification was the basis for a boneheaded argument that natural selection should eliminate "the gay gene" from the population over time (with the implication that homosexuality cannot have a genetic basis).

Choice has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply pointing out that nature is capable of producing the variation in sexual orientation that we observe and that natural selection will not inevitably purge "the gay gene(s)" from a population.

Love isn't just a switch to flip

It is for a christian. Love is only a conditional and forced response to them. They are ordered to love, attach strings to their love, and according to them, rewarded for this behavior.

Is there any doubt whatsoever that Jesus himself would be turned away from this school and the doorstep of 99.9% of christians today? A dark-skinned, homeless, jobless, childless, unmarried Jew that only hangs with younger men and tells people to give all their possessions to the poor, not judge people, and keep their faith a private affair between you and god.

How'd you translate "socialist marxist communist libtard" into Aramaic?

#190 | POSTED BY BLUSKY
"How'd you translate "socialist marxist communist libtard" into Aramaic?"

Yeshiva, perhaps. Although my Aramaic is understandably rusty.

Although it could be "Isa"...

Choice has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply pointing out that nature is capable of producing the variation in sexual orientation that we observe and that natural selection will not inevitably purge "the gay gene(s)" from a population.

#189 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Nature produces many things. Should we use nature as our guide?

- Tigers eat their young.
- Lemmings throw themselves off cliffs.
- A Black Widow spider will frack her husband then kill, and eat him.
- A certain type of wasp will destroy and entire honey bee colony, for the hell of it.

So why not bless a certain Zombie farm boy who decides he wants to to frack his sheep!

Let's let nature be our guide!

True, but they certainly deserve to be called out for their rank hypocrisy. This isn't about following the Gospel. It's about choosing who to discriminate against, and picking an easy target.
Who would Jesus deny?
#94 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-03-08 04:54 PM

Just for your information, Jesus would turn away anyone who truly and actually turned him away in terms of continuing to turn him away by not changing and adapting to follow what was best for their lives. If you continue to talk in the darkness, Jesus is going to turn you away. If you continue to make excuses as to why you are not following him, he will turn you away, but in actuality it is you who is turning yourself away in those cases.
Jesus may accept everyone, but based on peoples actions, they indicate whether they accept that acceptance or not.
#125 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-03-09 09:13 AM

You sound uncertain - do you have examples of Jesus turning someone away from him?

Nature produces many things. Should we use nature as our guide?

I honestly always felt these Love and Rockets lyrics answered that question perfectly:

You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Going against nature
Is part of nature too
-No New Tale to Tell

Basically, since we are natural, then anything we do is a natural act.

#193 | POSTED BY SABBATAI
"frack his sheep!"

Frack??

Sab, are you a Battlestar Galactica fan?

hehe

Basically, since we are natural, then anything we do is a natural act.

#195 | Posted by kanrei

Yes, and if nature is all there is, then all things are permissible!

Sab, are you a Battlestar Galactica fan?

hehe

#196 | Posted by TheTom

LOL!!

Nature is all there is. G-d, assuming he exists, is part of nature. Either we made Him or he occurred naturally. And in a universe where a being like G-d can exist naturally, and G-d is limitless, then all things are natural.

Are you dizzy yet, kanrei?

Nope. On the straight path of logic. No spin yet.

On the straight path of logic.

More like the sinusoidal path of circular logic.

Nature is all there is. G-d, assuming he exists, is part of nature. Either we made Him or he occurred naturally. And in a universe where a being like G-d can exist naturally, and G-d is limitless, then all things are natural.

#199 | Posted by kanrei

You're a Jew and you believe this? Sounds like you went to the Shirley McClaine school of theology.

Assuming G-d exists, it would be an error to assume that G-d would be a part of the universe. That would make G-d creature.

Nature produces many things. Should we use nature as our guide?

As a guide for behavior? Sure. Each of the behaviors you listed plays a vital role in the species where they are observed. It is ridiculous to insinuate that it would be "natural" for humans to imitate the behavior of another species. Are you too stupid to see the distinction, or are you deliberately failing to make that distinction because you know you cannot support beliefs with a valid argument?

We are social animals... it is only natural for us to define standards of behavior within our societies. We are also intelligent animals (generally speaking... you might be a notable exception). It would be unnatural for us to deliberately avoid using our intelligence in defining standards of acceptable behavior. That is precisely what religious fanatics do when they substitute a stream of mindless vitriol for a rational argument.

"Assuming G-d exists, it would be an error to assume that G-d would be a part of the universe. That would make G-d creature."

That depends on what definition of God you are using. Which is the whole point.

You're a Jew and you believe this? Sounds like you went to the Shirley McClaine school of theology.

Um...what? I am Jewish, but I view it as more of an Eastern philosophical faith rather than one of those "after-life is determined by your actions in this life." There is no Heaven or Hell. Where did G-d come from? There are only two options: either he was made, or he has always been. If he has always been, then he occurred naturally and therefore is part of nature. Simple logic. G-d made logic too.

That depends on what definition of God you are using.

Not really. G-d either was made or always was. If he always was, then he occurred naturally, right?

G-d made logic too.

God made logic
But belief in god is illogical
Therefore, god didn't create logic

But belief in god is illogical

Opinion.

It is ridiculous to insinuate that it would be "natural" for humans to imitate the behavior of another species. Are you too stupid to see the distinction, or are you deliberately failing to make that distinction because you know you cannot support beliefs with a valid argument?

#204 | Posted by ZombieHunter

And yet when people do the things animals do (like the examples I gave), we will say things like, "What an animal!" or "He acted like an animal."

No biggie though, because acting like animals is to act according to nature. Afterall, humans are animals.

So if humans act like tigers, or lemmings, or Zombie the farm boy, what's the big deal? It's just nature! So we're super intelligent. Big deal! Nature rules. Go frack your sheep!

if nature is all there is, then all things are permissible

What defines something as "permissable"? Humans, you idiot! Even for the religious, it is a human that reads and interprets a book, and it is a human that defines what is or is not acceptable based on that interpretation. It is a human who holds himself, herself, or others accountable to that interpretation of "divine" law.

If nature is all there is (by which I assume you mean that there is no "supernatural"), humans will still define what is or is not acceptable behavior. They will just be doing it on the basis of rational arguments instead of a collection of arbitrary standards found in some dusty old book.

#209

Not being facetious or trolling (really!) but do you get a divinity demerit for C&Ping the word 'god' instead of editing it and replacing the vowel with a dash?

And along those lines vis-a-vis the "opinion" thing: Don't you think it illogical that something as omnipotent as god really cares if you spell his name -- or for that matter eat a cheeseburger or oyster or pork chop? If he does care, that simply underscores that god is illogical and logically cannot exist.

#194 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-09 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Luke 9:57-62
57As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."

58Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

59He said to another man, "Follow me."
But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

60Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

61 Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family."

62Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

Matthew 10:32-33
32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Matthew 10:37-39
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

So if humans act like tigers, or lemmings, or Zombie the farm boy, what's the big deal?

Well... maybe the "big deal" is that we we are humans so there is no point in acting like something else. Are you truly this fucking stupid?

acting like animals is to act according to nature

Acting like a human is acting in accordance with nature. Acting like a lemming is being an idiot.

#212 =D

I tell myself "I am only copying, I am not writing it" and therefore do not break the "do not write the word" rule.

As to the second, it is a sign of respect for me, like calling your parents mom and dad instead of by their proper names.

If nature is all there is (by which I assume you mean that there is no "supernatural"), humans will still define what is or is not acceptable behavior. They will just be doing it on the basis of rational arguments instead of a collection of arbitrary standards found in some dusty old book.

#211 | Posted by ZombieHunter

If humans define what is acceptable behavior, then who decides which humans are right? Answer: no one!

"Acceptable behavior" is a human convention. It means nothing. One says fracking his sister is ok, another says it's not ok. So who's right?

If nature is all there is, then all things are permissible, regardless of the conventions Zombie creates.

#212 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag

The new testament talks about the laws purpose, in that it exists to show the people that they were incapable of doing what was necessary without looking to God for forgiveness. They were going to mess up, they didn't have the capacity to do everything right and therefore, need a redeemer of which they are called to look toward.

It is not that eating the meat or oyster was objectively wrong, rather it was subjectively wrong for the people, in order to show them that they could not fulfill the desired commands.

Thus why God set up the OT sacrificial system in order that they would have a means to atone, temporarily, for their other sins that they obviously could not control if they cant even stop themselves from eating an oyster.

The goal was for them to see their inability and understand that they needed someone to step in for them, thus the Redeemer, or Christos - annointed one. Meschiach, Messiah. etc.

One says fracking his sister is ok, another says it's not ok. So who's right?

Therein lies the difference between could and should. A brother could f...his sister as they both have the necessary parts to make it happen. He shouldn't however because of the genetic defects we know happens from inbreeding.

He shouldn't however because of the genetic defects we know happens from inbreeding.

Not to mention it's just plain disgusting. Incest and cannabilism are two taboos that a sane person could (not should lol) never violate.

Not to mention it's just plain disgusting. Incest and cannabilism are two taboos that a sane person could (not should lol) never violate.

#220 | Posted by goatman

Wow! That's pretty judgmental Goatman! Obviously you have no respect for the primitive natives of Papua New Guinea? Don't you and Zombie realize that these folks used their intelligence to arrive at their ethic? And their society seemed quite able to perpetuate itself under this ethic.

They may seem to act like animals to us, but who are we to judge? It's just human nature!

Ironically, cultures like Papua New Guinea view cannibalism through a religious filter and are doing it for spiritual reasons rather than nutritional.

I think anyone who touches on the statement that "no God leads to moral relativism"needs to remember that under either system the person is completely able and allowed to do whatever it is they like.

IN one, there is an objectively designated punishment over something that someone does if they decide to do something .

In the other, moral relativism, you can have the same exact result. People still just as able to do whatever they want, it just so happens that to some people if you rape or incest or murder, you might get raped or murdered in return. Everyone will be completely free to do whatever they want and therefore if someone rapes, it does not objectively have to be wrong and yet another person may decide to use their freedom to punish that person for doing something they don't like.

You will end up with laws and consequences either way. Every action has a consequence, and each person is free to do whatever it is that they would like. They just have to understand that there will be consequences for their action in either situation.

Ironically, cultures like Papua New Guinea view cannibalism through a religious filter and are doing it for spiritual reasons rather than nutritional.

#222 | Posted by kanrei

That's because religion is also a human convention, part of human nature. So whether they eat each other for nutritional reasons or religious ones they still do the deed = human nature!

So frack your sister, frack your sheep, frack a homo named little bo peep! It's all human nature!

either way I would say the Catholic school is being hypocritical in this situation. Enforce the divorce issue, the drunkenness issue, the idolatry issue, and everything, or don't enforce anything.

..."Yeah, I used to be Catholic but then,

I gave it up for Lent"...(cue drum roll)

(zing!)

#194 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-09 02:02 PM

Luke 9:57-62
57As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."
58Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."
59He said to another man, "Follow me."
But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
60Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
61 Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family."
62Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

So, you perceive this act of loving reverence as lack of serviceability? Either you or Jesus is wrong in interpretation, imo.

Matthew 10:32-33
32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Matthew 10:37-39
37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
#213 | Posted by expsredemption at 2010-03-09 02:31 PM

"Worthy".. more like "self-aware".

Either way, you have me - I can't quote scripture effectively without Googling and it would appear that you can find scriptural accounts of Jesus discluding potential fresh brethren for nothing less than their sentimentality and common courtesy. That seems counter-intuitive to what I understand, but no less obviously written.

Hey - how many times does Jesus mention the "cross" symbology?

#227 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-09 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well you have to understand, from the perspective that Jesus is God come in the flesh, it would make the case that the subjectively important in your family, would be less significant than the objectivity that you are following the truth and the more important aspect of living.

There would be no reason to bury the dead over pursuing true life. And unfortunate as it may be, Jesus would become something greater than your family, and therefore should take priority.

Hey - how many times does Jesus mention the "cross" symbology?

#228 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-09 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I what context are you speaking of? IN terms of the "pick up your cross and follow me" or in other symbolism?

#227 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-09 03:43 PM

Well you have to understand, from the perspective that Jesus is God come in the flesh, it would make the case that the subjectively important in your family, would be less significant than the objectivity that you are following the truth and the more important aspect of living.
There would be no reason to bury the dead over pursuing true life. And unfortunate as it may be, Jesus would become something greater than your family, and therefore should take priority.

It's exhibiting megalomaniacal aspects. To deny people closure is cruel. The withhold their family at the threat of less-than-eternal gratitude is none other than the ultimate "stick". This does not necessarily seem very loving or cognizant of the human condition Jesus means to "better".

Hey - how many times does Jesus mention the "cross" symbology?
#228 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-03-09 03:45 PM

I what context are you speaking of? IN terms of the "pick up your cross and follow me" or in other symbolism?
#229 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-03-09 03:57 PM

Well, specifically the term "cross" as in did Jesus expect people to literally have miniature crosses on their kitchen wall or what? Was this a household symbol or even more ancient? My roommate is arguing me that crucifixion itself was commonplace - I say that it was usually limited to enemy's of the State. Is Jesus allegedly politically motivating these people or spiritually?

It's exhibiting megalomaniacal aspects. To deny people closure is cruel. The withhold their family at the threat of less-than-eternal gratitude is none other than the ultimate "stick". This does not necessarily seem very loving or cognizant of the human condition Jesus means to "better".

Well, it is not exactly the physical act that is being spoken about, rather the conclusion that they really are not dedicated to following. It is an excuse. The persons father was not dead at that point, as how would he know that he had to go back and bury him? The individual wanted to wait until it was convenient for him to follow, therefore no sacrifice. He showed that he did not want to follow all that bad.

"Well, specifically the term "cross" as in did Jesus expect people to literally have miniature crosses on their kitchen wall or what? Was this a household symbol or even more ancient? My roommate is arguing me that crucifixion itself was commonplace - I say that it was usually limited to enemy's of the State. Is Jesus allegedly politically motivating these people or spiritually?"

I think it is a duel point here. 1. They have to be willing to face the cross for their following of him, as they might very well face death. His death was going to be via the cross.

2. The cross would be indicative of trials, difficulties, and your persevering through them. Take up your cross and follow me, pretty much saying, Man up and prepare yourself for difficulty, do not be afraid to take a risk, and do not allow the potential hardships to deter you from the true goal. Eventually they will take up their cross in terms of death and follow him where he was going.

John 3:14-15
14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.

John 8:23-30
23But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be,[a] you will indeed die in your sins."

25"Who are you?" they asked.

"Just what I have been claiming all along," Jesus replied. 26"I have much to say in judgment of you. But he who sent me is reliable, and what I have heard from him I tell the world."

27They did not understand that he was telling them about his Father. 28So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am the one I claim to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. 29The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him." 30Even as he spoke, many put their faith in him.

John 12:28-36
Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.

30Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." 33He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.

34The crowd spoke up, "We have heard from the Law that the Christ[f] will remain forever, so how can you say, 'The Son of Man must be lifted up'? Who is this 'Son of Man'?"

35Then Jesus told them, "You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. The man who walks in the dark does not know where he is going. 36Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of light."

As a Catholic I completely agree with the school position.

While the school does not interview everyone to know if they are using birth control, or having abortions, the school would be able to deny a person(s) who publicly lived so that all knew they subscribed to these practices and/or beliefs.

A homosexual couple who publicly lives as such, and then sends their child to a Catholic school, is daring the school to say something. I think they got what they wanted.

A Catholic school is just that...Catholic. While the world may not agree with God and his Church, this does not mean that the Church becomes subject to the rules and laws of the world.

Jesus most certainly loves all of us. We are all sinners. However, Jesus never encouraged us to turn a blind eye towards sin or justify it. He called us out, to turn from sin and follow him. We've confused love with tolerance. True love does not tolerate sin, but loves the person enough to tell them the truth.

These are instances where Jesus is alluding to the cross and his death and why his death will take place etc.

He did not advocate them carrying around little tiny crucifixes. That is not what is in mind.

He did not advocate them carrying around little tiny crucifixes. That is not what is in mind.

I liked what someone said here a year or so ago: If the Jesus story happened today, everyone would be wearing little tiny electric chairs on gold chains around their neck.

#233 | Posted by gabbi0408 at 2010-03-09 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag

If that is what they were doing, trying not to turn a blind eye to sin, they would stop allowing individuals using birth control, divorcing, being alcoholics, etc, in an open fashion , from having their children attend the school as well.

Although it is their right as a private entity, it is not showing that they have a desire to hinder sin. They allow far more sin in their school than they hinder out of it.

If you can't see that you are blind. Lets just take language for one instance. Catholics tend to have the foulest mouths of the religious groups that I see.

#235 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'll just say one thing, people who can't carry around their "cross", tend to wear them instead.

Not a universal thing, but on most occasions.

The cross is a reminder, but I think one is enough. Furthermore, it is the fact that he got off the cross that would be important, so images of the crucifixion are kind of antithetical

#236 | POSTED BY EXPSREDEMPTION
"Catholics tend to have the foulest mouths of the religious groups that I see."

Not my grandmother!!! ;)

Seriously, though...
I don't think Gabbi's point was about how much sin is hindered or not, but rather the fact that it is (like it or not) the school's right to let in whom they choose, and that the lesbian parents in question were most likely aware of the school's position.
Not necessarily the case, and I don't think they were "daring the school", but that was the point I saw.

If that is what they were doing, trying not to turn a blind eye to sin, they would stop allowing individuals using birth control, divorcing, being alcoholics, etc, in an open fashion , from having their children attend the school as well.

#236 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

This is not an accurate analogy! Take the alcoholic category for example. If a couple who was alcoholic was bringing their child to be enrolled in the church-school, and they were doing so while at the same time demanding that alcoholism be declared normal and wholesome behavior..., if they were also demanding special rights to protect their alcoholic behavior from any kind of prejudicial treatment...and if they litigated to have any kind of "hate speech" against alcoholics removed from public discourse (such speech that would condemn the behavior)...if they came to the school with their children, more to provoke a confrontation with the church in order to shame the church into accepting their behavior.....THEN you might have a point with such an analogy!

#239 | POSTED BY SABBATAI
"if they were also demanding special rights to protect their alcoholic behavior from any kind of prejudicial treatment."

There's that "special rights" thing again...
Seriously, what "special rights" are these people asking for?

Other than that, a well-argued post.

Um...

The policy about the gospel was quoted in regard to the non admittance of these parents due to a lifestyle that is against gospel.

Divorce, drunkenness, in their mind birth control, foul language, missing service, etc, would have to be regulated as well, in accordance to school policy.

If you don't do that, you lose credibility.

I know it is their right to do that, and that is fine, if they would just come out and say "as a private institution, we have the right to accept or not accept anyone we so choose."

Do not site the gospel all the while you have individuals rampant in breaking it with c children inside the doors.

#240 | Posted by TheTom

Ok, I understand the "special rights" gripe. But suppose the alcoholic parents got upset with auto insurance companies for punishing them with higher premiums, or revoked their policy, just because they liked to drink and drive? The travesty of it all! There needs to be something done in the courts to give special protection from such arbitrary discrimination.

Obviously you have no respect for the primitive natives of Papua New Guinea?

Ironic choice. The Catholics sent missionaries to PNG. As you might expect, the first priest had a hard time relaying many of the symbolic messages of the bible. For example, folks in PNG don't know wtf a sheep is, and have no concept of a sheppard. One of the drawbacks of limiting supernatural appearances to only desert people. The bishop was noticeably shocked to discover his priests had taken to calling the reluctant congregation "swine" because they knew what a pig was, they kept pigs. He was even giving Mass, in Latin no less, (as if they knew what he was saying anyway) to his "swine" (sus).

Who is being disrespectful again?

Anyway, just goes to show the bible isn't even good metaphor.

Um...

The policy about the gospel was quoted in regard to the non admittance of these parents due to a lifestyle that is against gospel.

#241 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Um...No, there's more to it than that! Your false enforcement/application of the gospel is not what the church is doing.

The church's position has something to do with "unrepentant lifestyle"...kinda like an unrepentant alcoholic couple who just revels in alcoholic behavior, wanting their kid to be enrolled.

#243 | Posted by BluSky

I guess there's a point in your post that is straining for an application? I fail to see it!

Right, what about unrepentant divorcee's, unrepentant birth control users, unrepentant foul language users, unrepentant adulterers, unrepentant service skippers.

The school should be trying to find out these things if they are interested in keeping those with visible unrepentant lifestyles form having their children in the school.

What about unrepentant speeders, unrepentant stop sign runners?

They should not have cited the gospel and rather stated that they had the right regardless.

When dealing with politically motivated people that would be the best circumstance, because the Catholic church often does not do its due diligence to advocate against the unrepentant sins of its own.

Right, what about unrepentant divorcee's, unrepentant birth control users, unrepentant foul language users, unrepentant adulterers, unrepentant service skippers.

The school should be trying to find out these things if they are interested in keeping those with visible unrepentant lifestyles form having their children in the school.

as an active parent with 2 kids in Catholic school........don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I fail to see it!

Not surprising.

I fail to see how a catholic could accuse someone else of being "disrespectful" to other cultures...and keep a straight face.

I wonder how all of this would fall if they found that the child had been fathered by a priest???

I wonder how all of this would fall if they found that the child had been fathered by a priest???

you mean if the lesbain couple said the child was fathered by a priest?

I doubt it would have any impact on their decision.

And since you're still here:

-Lions (not tigers) eat other lion's young, not their own. This forces the females to go into heat within hours.

-The mass suicide myth is only believed by people who get their understanding of the world through Disney movies and comic books.

-Spiders don't get married and have a good reason for storing food after procreation

-Vespa mandarinia Japonica are hornets, not wasps, and any fool should know the purpose of invading a honey bee colony.

I liked what someone said here a year or so ago: If the Jesus story happened today, everyone would be wearing little tiny electric chairs on gold chains around their neck.

#252 That looks like something my niece would wear.

... they'd have to wear a hypodermic needle necklace.

hmmm. You give me an idea on how to market my used insulin syringes.

Let me understand this better.

Starbucks, a private business, should be able to bar people exercising their Constitutional right to openly carry a gun in public...

But...

The Catholic Church, also a private business, can't bar someone who has no constitutional right to their services?

You have it exactly backwards, in my view.

Catholic schools have the right to deny anyone based upon the rules of the Catholic faith. Sorry libs, your fabricated seperation of church and state do not apply here; as if they apply anywhere.

If anyone is out of line here it is the lesbian "parents" for tossing a child into the ring to make a point against the Church. Again, apply the live and let live mantra to others.

It's exhibiting megalomaniacal aspects. To deny people closure is cruel. The withhold their family at the threat of less-than-eternal gratitude is none other than the ultimate "stick". This does not necessarily seem very loving or cognizant of the human condition Jesus means to "better".

Well, it is not exactly the physical act that is being spoken about, rather the conclusion that they really are not dedicated to following. It is an excuse. The persons father was not dead at that point, as how would he know that he had to go back and bury him? The individual wanted to wait until it was convenient for him to follow, therefore no sacrifice. He showed that he did not want to follow all that bad.

This allows for many interpretations - Jesus may have also been meaning that they literally are better suited to farming than political and religious heresy, while others would represent less of a threat to the Romans while amassing.

"Well, specifically the term "cross" as in did Jesus expect people to literally have miniature crosses on their kitchen wall or what? Was this a household symbol or even more ancient? My roommate is arguing me that crucifixion itself was commonplace - I say that it was usually limited to enemy's of the State. Is Jesus allegedly politically motivating these people or spiritually?"

I think it is a duel point here. 1. They have to be willing to face the cross for their following of him, as they might very well face death. His death was going to be via the cross.
2. The cross would be indicative of trials, difficulties, and your persevering through them. Take up your cross and follow me, pretty much saying, Man up and prepare yourself for difficulty, do not be afraid to take a risk, and do not allow the potential hardships to deter you from the true goal. Eventually they will take up their cross in terms of death and follow him where he was going.
#231 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-03-09 04:35 PM

The cross.. can you find evidence that people did not literally own miniature crosses or used them as decorations? You presume that the Bible's use of the cross is entirely symbolic - which it may well be, but it is probably also of something much more ancient than Roman punishment for spies, like the zodiacal symbol that it originally was since before the Sumerian civilization. Biblical literary translations appear to consistently ignore this, if not conveniently so.

If humans define what is acceptable behavior, then who decides which humans are right?

Do you even realize the circular reasoning in your question? By defining what is "acceptable," humans have also defined what is "right".

The Catholic Church, also a private business, can't bar someone who has no constitutional right to their services?
You have it exactly backwards, in my view.

#254 | POSTED BY BENDOR AT 2010-03-09 06:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG

I understand your view, and do believe Starbucks can prevent people with guns. But, I also believe that the church can likewise not allow kids of homosexual students in school.

#242 | POSTED BY SABBATAI

Well, Sab, I'd say regarding the alcoholic parents that the insurance company has a legitimate reason to foresee a greater risk.
Insurance is a risk-based industry, so teens, or someone with, say, several DUIs on their recent record pose a higher risk.
Now, mind you, that would apply to a driving record with alcohol-related incidents.
An alcohol who no longer drinks would in my mind pose no greater risk than the average driver.

In any case, I don't think the alcoholic comparison works here.
While "drunkeness" may be addressed in scripture, it is a rather vague term.
What constitutes "drunkeness", after all?

You mention an "unrepentant lifestyle". I don't know if that is the reasoning behind the school not admitting the student or not.
I'd imagine it stems more from the awkwardness of having a child of lesbian parents, and needing to address that.

(Odd, but the injunction in Leviticus is specifically against MALE homosexuality....I'd imagine from all that seed-wasting....)

Frankly, one can agree or disagree with the school's sentiment, but it's still their call to admit the student or not.

#243 | POSTED BY BLUSKY

Great story, Blu!

"somehow methinks there was a lab involved, and some kind of juice from the opposite sex."

what's your point?

#8 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2010-03-08 10:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

The point is freak shows produce freaks.

It's their right, and their loss, to reject whomever they like....

I have to agree with this lesbian woman's contention. I attend Mass and there a number of folks here like most parishes in America have couples who are unmarried and have been cohabitating for years with children. Many parishioners are divorced and re-married to other spouses. I'd say way over 90% of Catholics practice birth control, and thats been going on since the WWII generation came back. All you have to do is look around you at all the 2 and 3 kid families with middle-aged parents. Seventy-five, to 80 years ago these families would have been 8, 10, 12 kid families. The priests know all this stuff.

So Like what gives here, Padre ?

Why take it out on the kids too!

#264 | Posted by shane at 2010-03-10 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Catholics do the easy things. When the hard things come about they ask for forgiveness for being sluggards.

In most cases.

#264 | Posted by shane

Somehow I doubt all those divorced parishioners are out on the streets after the worship service celebrating divorce, lifting it up as a virtue worthy of making it a bed time story for the kids.

"Jimmy, when you grow up you can get a divorce too!!! And I hope I'm there to share it with you!!! Your mommy and I celebrate every day that we got a divorce. In fact, we're thinking of getting re-married, so that we can get another divorce! Divorce is so good for you! I hope you can experience one day too!!! Good night Jimmy!"

"If nature is all there is, then all things are permissible."

If you want to use Dostoevsky's ironical (mis)quote, the least you could do is actually read The Brothers Karamazov to understand its meaning.

However, much less is required to show the fallacy of your gibberish. All you need to do is look at how often holy intervention is the source of depraved action. It would seem the bible is correct in saying 'with god allthings are possible'. Rape, incest, genocide, slavery...all possible, all positively recommended by the bible, and the people who commit these crimes often believe themselves to be under the direct command of god.

Do you think anyone on this board would have a hard time naming an action done by a believer in god's name that is immoral? I'll bet you've thought of several before this sentence is read. Now, can you name a moral action that can't be performed by an atheist? (don't try too hard it's a trick question)
You actually do your god a disservice by giving him credit for divine morality. Because if it is true, if god is the source of our morality, All His Work Still Lies Ahead. After at least 100,000 years of homo sapiens, 5000 years of monotheism, and 2000 years after Christ, All His Work Is In Front Of Him.

The "parents" were well aware that the school promoted Catholic teaching and traditions, as such if they didn't want to adhere to them, then why are they bitching now? The Church is an institution not a public entitlement that they can bend to their likes and dislikes. Much like everything else in life, if you can't follow the rules of the game, then find another game to cheat at.

if you can't follow the rules of the game, then find another game to cheat at.

Ahh, speaking of good ole Christian morals...

Archidioscese responds to controversy over its decision to kick children with lesbian parents out of school.

Did they just open a new can of worms?

Well, if they're serious about the "sacramental covenant" bit, they should toss all the kids whose parents married outside the Catholic Church.

If you want to use Dostoevsky's ironical (mis)quote, the least you could do is actually read The Brothers Karamazov to understand its meaning.

However, much less is required to show the fallacy of your gibberish. All you need to do is look at how often holy intervention is the source of depraved action.

#267 | Posted by blusky

Actually Blusky, I've read it. Assuming that I do not understand its original meaning, why don't you tell me it's meaning? Or were you just name-dropping to pretend an intellectual sophistication?

And you really did not demonstrate any fallacy of my "misquote" position. Instead, what you tried to do was ridicule or discredit theism and then think that by doing so you've demonstrated the fallacy of the original statement? Nope...sorry! No cigar!

Don't those nutty creationists do the same thing with evolution? They set out to establish their nutty creationism by attempting to discredit evolution. Apparently they aren't aware that falsifying evolution, even if they could, does not in fact establish their own position. You do the same thing. Don't be a nutball!

So once again Blusky, if nature is all there is, then all things are permissible.

Now show the board where nature's universe would disagree with this idea? Where in nature do we find support for the arbitrary human invention called "ethics?" Zombie the farm boy seems to think it's written into evolutionary concepts like "survivability," but that's just plain nonsense! Nature survives by smashing, eating, destroying others...even one's own.

Have at it.

Did they just open a new can of worms?

"But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant;"

Are the children of these sinners going to be kicked out of school?

#270 | Posted by mmike at 2010-03-10 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would say they did just open another can of worms here, as that is something that they can see, and is visible to others around them.

They would have to kick out any person whose divorce parents are not married and having sexual relations with a partner, or if there are "parents" who are not married and their child is in the school,.

I think they will lose quite a bit of students if they actually followed through on what they claim to believe and enforce.

Such a fracking would be unethical to you because of the harm to the offspring?

Yes. Assuming it was consensual sex between you and your sister, it would still be "wrong" because of the risk of genetic defects. It's quite revealing that you cannot present an argument explaining why homosexuality is "wrong". Your incoherent babble about fucking brothers, sisters, and livestock does not pertain to the topic of homosexuality. I'll ask again... are you a goddamn idiot, or are you intellectually dishonest?

If nature is all there is, then all things are permissible.

I didn't respond to this statement because it's fucking obnoxious. Nature (in the sense of a universe without a supernatural aspect) is all that there is. No superstitious idiot has ever managed to prove otherwise. Delusional fuckwits like Sabbatai rely on arguments from ignorance because they have no objective evidence that can support their beliefs.

Back to this issue of "permissibility" ... who gives permission for an act? Humans. Humans with a sense of morality that has been honed by millennia of natural selection. Our evolutionarily optimized sense of ethics establishes a completely valid, objective standard of what is and is not permissible. Sabbatai has his panties in a wad because the evidence shows his favorite fairy tale is utterly irrelevant. An objective standard morality does not require his imaginary friend in the sky.

All behaviors are "permissible," at least in the mind of the person engaging in that behavior. Not all behaviors are permissible according to our innate sense of morality, nor are all behaviors compatible with a functional society.

Nature survives by smashing, eating, destroying others...even one's own.

There is trememdous brutality in nature, but remember... nature is also the source of all altruism observed among humans or other species. It may be advantageous for the female black widow to eat her mate. Such is not the case for humans. There are tremendous biological differences between humans and any of the "brutal" species Sabbatai mentioned. Making a comparison between the morality of their behaviors is idiotic to the point of hilarity.

Just as natural selection favors cannibalistic behavior in some species, it favors altruistic behavior in ours. Sabbatai hasn't the faintest fucking clue about nature. Like other fanatics, he just regurgitates inane statements about subjects he has no knowledge of.

Sabbatai, I hope you find some measure of peace in your blind hatred and willful stupidity.

Back to this issue of "permissibility" ... who gives permission for an act? Humans. Humans with a sense of morality that has been honed by millennia of natural selection. Our evolutionarily optimized sense of ethics establishes a completely valid, objective standard of what is and is not permissible. Sabbatai has his panties in a wad because the evidence shows his favorite fairy tale is utterly irrelevant. An objective standard morality does not require his imaginary friend in the sky.

I don't know about those statements, as a large part of our ethical structure has come from the same superstitious mumbo jumbo that you decry. Whether it be the ancient Sumerians or anyone else, we do not know exactly how far back the fables go, and exactly how much they influenced our sense of morality and ethics.

I think you might be getting a head of yourself in your argument.

Although I don't agree with Sab, and I know that athiests can behave "morally" and "ethically" without religion, or any other superstitious mumbo jumbo, the reason why they do so is not necessarily explained with the argument you just presented, as without all the information that in itself is an argument from ignorance.

Almost all churches/religions have the same hypocritical problem of discipline and adherence to church teachings once they venture into the secular world.

Day care, schools, hospitals, adoption, social services, and all the other charitable works offered to all "seems" to affect their authority over their congregation either positively or negatively.

Yes. Assuming it was consensual sex between you and your sister, it would still be "wrong" because of the risk of genetic defects.

Assuming it was consensual homo-sex, wouldn't it still be wrong because of the risk of life threatening disease? How about other STDs?

Your incoherent babble about fucking brothers, sisters, and livestock does not pertain to the topic of homosexuality.

Oh I see, the mighty farm boy has spoken, thus it is so! His use of emotional and vulgar language simply adds legitimacy to his pronouncement. Or does it?

Back to this issue of "permissibility" ... who gives permission for an act? Humans. Humans with a sense of morality that has been honed by millennia of natural selection. Our evolutionarily optimized sense of ethics establishes a completely valid, objective standard of what is and is not permissible.

Objective standard? LOL!!! Our "evolutionary optimized sense of ethics"? LOL!!! You mean those wonderful optimized ethics that gave us WWI, WWII, and our present world that's on the edge? On the contrary, our "optimized ethics" have made us no better than ancient civilizations at the beginning of history. Get out of your romantic rewrite of human history and get a clue!

There is trememdous brutality in nature, but remember... nature is also the source of all altruism observed among humans or other species.

So if I decide I want to abide by the brutal side of nature? You should stay the hell away from me with your high and mighty invented human rules. I'll take tooth and claw as my model. Live and let live is what I say! If other humans say differently, fine, but who are they to judge? Freaks!

There are tremendous biological differences between humans and any of the "brutal" species Sabbatai mentioned. Making a comparison between the morality of their behaviors is idiotic to the point of hilarity.

There are many similarities too! In fact, human brutality far surpasses animal brutality (see above the point made of WWI, WWII), so yes, the comparison is idiotic!

Sabbatai hasn't the faintest fucking clue about nature. Like other fanatics, he just regurgitates inane statements about subjects he has no knowledge of.

And farm boy is stuck in his romantic view of nature, and is thus the truly clueless one!

Your move Farm boy!

Part of the problem is that they cannot really adhere to their discipline in the "secular" world, as the "secular" world does not accept it, or allow it to take place.

For some reason, the same people that have such a problem with the church and how it is defined are the same people trying to get accepted by them.

They may be tolerated, but not accepted, in that their practice would not be acceptable.

To make a concrete claim such as was made by the Bishop, would entail that since the whole world can see the lifestyle the church is claiming to uphold, they should uphold it, no matter what it does to their bottom line.

I would say that for the most part of what I have seen, the Catholic church is a church focused more on profit than principle.

I'd be most curious to know if this school does now or has ever received funds for any purpose from any governmental entity. If so they should now be obligated to return it with interest. A lot of these schools receive grants, vouchers and other such funds. Perhaps the Catholic Church, Inc. needs to repay this?

Actually Blusky, I've read it.

I dunno... you didn't seem to learn anything from it. The book is about intellectual dishonesty --people who make faulty arguments whilst knowing they are false, or worse, that those ideas will lead to disaster if followed to conclusion. Faulty ideas like your misquote which Dostoevsky hoisted upon the idiot brother, who like you promoted "nothing is unlawful" as an intellectual toy and at the same time believed in god.

You're the puppet Dostoevsky was mocking and now you're here using his mockery as a prop to do the very thing he was warning of. If you weren't so stupid you'd laugh at yourself.

#279 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
'Part of the problem is that they cannot really adhere to their discipline in the "secular" world, as the "secular" world does not accept it, or allow it to take place. '

True for certain practices within the religion like polygyny among others but most free secular societies are more hands off than hands on.

"For some reason, the same people that have such a problem with the church and how it is defined are the same people trying to get accepted by them."

Which may lead for the call to reform (from within) for inclusion or just leaving. Being born and raised in a religion makes it hard for many people to just leave their beliefs.

"They may be tolerated, but not accepted, in that their practice would not be acceptable."

At what point does redemption lead to rejection. Some are welcome to worship but not have their child enrolled in school.

"To make a concrete claim such as was made by the Bishop, would entail that since the whole world can see the lifestyle the church is claiming to uphold, they should uphold it, no matter what it does to their bottom line."

So the hypocrisy

Looks like I've got you posting in bold now, Sabbatai... you should know that thicker letters do not make up for a lack of substance in the sentences they form. Let's take a look at some of these gems, shall we?

A moron muses, "So if I decide I want to abide by the brutal side of nature?"

You would not get the chance to repeat that behavior. Humans have decided that such behavior is not permissible (based on evolutionarily optimized standards of what constitutes acceptable behavior). Not wanting to let the previous statement feel too lonely in its stupidity, Sabbatai continues: "You mean those wonderful optimized ethics that gave us WWI, WWII, and our present world that's on the edge?"

You should add to that list several millennia worth of religiously-inspired genocide. Only in the last hundred years of recorded history have we seen genocide not exclusively motivated by religion. Much tyranny in the 20th century was still religiously motivated, however. The question that needs to be asked is why religions (most notably the Abrahamic ones) have failed so miserably in the prevention of atrocities.

Look at any genocide in history, and you will see that it was enabled by dehumanization of an enemy, not a lack of petty superstition. The ethic of reciprocity only applies to people you view as human. If you are a leader who adopts a of exploiting others, you must overcome your population's innate sense of morality. Historically, leaders have done that by dehumanizing the enemy.

More often than not, the ability to believe something in the absence of evidence (faith) was an enabling factor in the killing. It is far easier to convince a population that some other group is subhuman if you don't have to go to the trouble of laying out empirical evidence to prove that statement. Recall I said earlier that individuals who adopt a strategy of exploitation cannot succeed over time in an environment populated by individuals who adopt a strategy reflecting the ethic of reciprocity. Look at history... evil men meet an evil end. Your imaginary friends have nothing to do with that.

Sabbatai demonstrates his glaring lack of historical awareness: "our 'optimized ethics' have made us no better than ancient civilizations at the beginning of history"

You have a point... we do still cling to the same asinine beliefs as those ancient civilizations at the beginning of history. Slavery, racism, subjugation of women, superstition... all are divisive relics of our tribal past. Modern civilizations gradually eradicate these aspects of our history as they advance beyond our predecessors (both morally and intellectually). We are more powerful as a species, so our mistakes are more catastrophic. A cursory glance at any of the genocidal campaigns in human history will show you that the death toll was only limited by the availability of victims and the efficiency of the killings.

"So if I decide I want to abide by the brutal side of nature?"

You would not get the chance to repeat that behavior. Humans have decided that such behavior is not permissible (based on evolutionarily optimized standards of what constitutes acceptable behavior)

Still, you haven't established that such ethics are the standard of the universe (which is all that exists, remember). You want to believe that the field of human ethics is the product of an evolutionary process for "optimization," and that human beings decide what is best! In truth, all you're really saying is that majority rule decides what right and wrong is, which is completely arbitrary. If you're going to look to evolutionary theory as your ground for proper behavior, the kind of behavior that best insures our survival, the numbers are not on your side.

Look Zombie, human beings are johnny-come-lately's to this planet. The jury is still out on whether superior intelligence is the best adaptation for survival. Man has only been around a few million years, and modern man (with his superior intelligence and "optimized ethics") has been around only about 10,000 years. And the prospects of our survival are not looking too good. The way we're going, it doesn't look like modern man can last too much longer.

The dinosaurs, on the other hand, ruled this planet for nearly 200 million years, and I doubt seriously their inferior intelligence developed anything that we could call "optimized ethics." Truth be told, the numbers are much better for inferior intelligence being most adept for survival.

Point? If "ethics" are really drawn from nature's evolutionary processes, there is really no compelling reason to abide by such. If nature is all there is, then the dinosaurs got it right! Huff and puff all you like, but there's no reason to believe that "optimized ethics" is really the best adaptation for survival.

You should add to that list several millennia worth of religiously-inspired genocide. Only in the last hundred years of recorded history have we seen genocide not exclusively motivated by religion. Much tyranny in the 20th century was still religiously motivated, however.

The "religion is genocide" argument is bogus. At the root of most of what you call "religious genocide" is a struggle for territory or self determination. The present strife in Northern Ireland, for example is not about transubstantiation of votive candles, but self determination. The last century's destruction of human life came not from religion, but political ideology. Indeed, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...etc., persecuted religion (mainly Christianity and Judaism), and murdered over 100 million people.

You have a point... we do still cling to the same asinine beliefs as those ancient civilizations at the beginning of history. Slavery, racism, subjugation of women, superstition... all are divisive relics of our tribal past.

See point on dinosaurs above! The potential for nuclear holocaust did not exist in our tribal past. The smarter we get, the closer we get to destroying ourselves. Knowledge appears more and more to be inimical to survival. If survival, via reproducibility, is what drives the evolutionary process, then intelligence does not appear to be the best adaptation for survival. So it's probably best that we go back to tribalism, or maybe even the law of the jungle? If nature is our guide...if nature is all there is, then the evidence is on my side!

The smarter we get, the closer we get to destroying ourselves. Knowledge appears more and more to be inimical to survival. If survival, via reproducibility, is what drives the evolutionary process, then intelligence does not appear to be the best adaptation for survival.

The smarter we get, the greater our mastery of our surroundings. While that mastery allows us to build more efficient ways of killing one another, it also facilitates our survival. Ever notice that we haven't destroyed ourselves despite having ample opportunities to do so? The jury is still out on whether or not we destroy ourselves, but until we do your argument is has no validity.

So it's probably best that we go back to tribalism, or maybe even the law of the jungle? If nature is our guide...if nature is all there is, then the evidence is on my side!

Was there supposed to be a coherent argument in this disorganized pile of rubbish? Nature is our guide in the sense that nature shows us the sorts of behaviors that are consistent with continued social existence - namely those behaviors that conform to the ethic of reciprocity. If we ever exercise our ability to destroy ourselves, it will be in defiance of our evolutionarily honed sense of morality. Not because of it. By the way, embracing religion is a return to tribalism.

the root of most of what you call "religious genocide" is a struggle for territory or self determination

A struggle in which the losers are invariably slaughtered. WWII was just a German struggle for territory and self-determination, you fool.

The Old Testament contains a historical record of divinely sanctioned genocide (as do other scriptures from other religions you are less familiar with). You do not view the bloody campaigns of ethnic cleansing recounted in the Old Testament as atrocious because you view the book as something holy and think the actions of its characters are sanctioned by god. Way to expose the subjectivity of your religiously-derived set of ethics. By the objective standard of evolutionary ethics, all genocide is unacceptable. By the subjective standard of religion, genocide can be rationalized quite easily.

you haven't established that such ethics are the standard of the universe...all you're really saying is that majority rule decides what right and wrong is

Standard of the universe? What the fuck are you talking about? We're only dealing with humanity and what behaviors allow our species and societies to continue to exist. Apparently you haven't been paying attention. The ethic of reciprocity, a product of our evolutionary history as intelligent social creatures, defines right and wrong. In the course of human history, no successful culture has ever defined "right" to be something other than behavior in accordance with the ethic of reciprocity. Evolutionary principles My reasoning, and I offer the entirety of human history as evidence. Petty superstition underlies your reasoning, and you offer no evidence whatsoever to defend your argument.

If you want to invent an invisible, undetectable entity and attribute all of this to it, be my guest. It doesn't change the fact that your ethical system is based on evolutionary principles. As a religious person, you've just added a bit of extraneous horseshit to the bare essentials laid out by nature. I guess all of the fire and brimstone spices things up a bit and makes you feel special.

If "ethics" are really drawn from nature's evolutionary processes, there is really no compelling reason to abide by such.

If your idea of a "compelling reason" is some asshole in the sky threatening to torture you for all eternity, you're absolutely correct. There is no reason to believe that such coercion is necessary for moral behavior, though. Your brain is wired with a subtle compulsion to morality. Generally speaking, it feels good to treat others altruistically and it feels bad exploit others. There is a biological basis for this. Humans invented religions largely as a means of defining who to be altruistic toward and who to exploit in a feudalistic or tribal environment.

The fact that the ethic of reciprocity is present in every major religious or secular ethical system proves that it is effective. We, as intelligent creatures, always ask "Why?" When our ancestors wondered why a failure to behave in accordance with the ethic of reciprocity caused a breakdown of society, they knew nothing about evolution. So they invented a bunch of hocus-pocus.