Sins of the Mothers

A Christian school in Ontario, California has expelled a 14-year-old for having two lesbian mommies.

"Your family does not meet the policies of admission," Supt. Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, Shay's biological mother. The policy, he added, states that at least one parent cannot engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style [sic] such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship."

Story here, link via Drudge.

Comments

joe | September 23, 2005, 4:28pm | #

That's exactly how Jesus chose his company, too.

Exactly.

ed | September 23, 2005, 4:33pm | #

Their school. Their rules.

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 4:34pm | #

Um, is this what Jesus would really want?

Standard Libertarian Disclaimer
My criticism of the aforementioned private institution in no way constitutes a call for legislation, regulation, or other coercive remedies. I firmly believe that the law should protect the right of all such private institutions to associate or not associate with individuals in accordance with their own beliefs and preferences, and I am merely exercising my freedom of speech when criticizing said private entity. It is my opinion that non-libelous speech is a vital part of the market. This disclaimer protects me from liability for injuries suffered by any poster who erroneously ascribes to me any statist position and experiences elevated blood pressure as a result. Void where prohibited. No purchase required.

half a wit is better than none | September 23, 2005, 4:34pm | #

Sounds like free markets are still working in California. Good!

Jennifer | September 23, 2005, 4:35pm | #

Of course it's their school, private property and blah blah blah, but as a former Christian I wonder how many personal sins they ignored before deciding to cast that first stone.

On the bright side, though, there's at least one kid who won't buy into their worldview.

Some Guy | September 23, 2005, 4:36pm | #

You know, so long as this is a private school then I'll point to the "Freedom also includes that with which you disagree" sign and acknowledge that they are within what I would consider to be their rights to do this.

However, they still deserve all the mockery and derision that we can heap upon them for being silly, superstitious, bigoted losers.

Tonio | September 23, 2005, 4:37pm | #

This school is quite possibly funded by public funds. My understanding is that Canada is big into school vouchers.

Not my country, not my problem, but I can still sneer. No stinkin' disclaimers, here!

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 4:38pm | #

Ontario is also the name of a city in California, Tonio.

Standard Libertarian Disclaimer
My criticism of the aforementioned private institution in no way constitutes a call for legislation, regulation, or other coercive remedies. I firmly believe that the law should protect the right of all such private institutions to associate or not associate with individuals in accordance with their own beliefs and preferences, and I am merely exercising my freedom of speech when criticizing said private entity. It is my opinion that non-libelous speech is a vital part of the market. This disclaimer protects me from liability for injuries suffered by any poster who erroneously ascribes to me any statist position and experiences elevated blood pressure as a result. Void where prohibited. No purchase required.

Tonio | September 23, 2005, 4:38pm | #

D'oh! It says "California" not "Canada."

Sorry.

zach | September 23, 2005, 4:39pm | #

this makes me want to open a school for skeptics. if parents are found to be evangelical christians or psychics, their kids are out. and if they turn out to be scientologists, we'll take their kids away from them.

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 4:41pm | #

The school is likely receiving some state funding.

Akira MacKenzie | September 23, 2005, 4:41pm | #

Ah yes, one of the many reasons I became an atheist: Mindless bigotry based on who you take to bed with you.

Oh yeah: School is private property... yadda, yadda, yadda.... even bigots have property rights... yadda... yadda... yadda... just don't ask me to like it.

There, have I remained sufficently "pure" for some libertarians?

Ruthless | September 23, 2005, 4:41pm | #

Thank Goddess she lives in California! There must be a warlock school nearby she could transfer to.

Tom Crick | September 23, 2005, 4:42pm | #

It's harder to get into this school than it is to get into heaven.

...Way to spread the gospel!

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 4:43pm | #

Tom, you didn't make any disclaimers in your message, and you implicitly criticized a private entity.

I have no choice but to assume that you're a statist.

ChicagoTom | September 23, 2005, 4:46pm | #

The school is likely receiving some state funding.

If that is the case, then would it be ok to criticize and ask for some sort of "statist" remedy?

No one that gets even 1 public dollar should be allowed to do this.

passingthru | September 23, 2005, 4:48pm | #

It's a Christian school.
Christians are against homosexuality.
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose parents are homosexual.

Any questions?

John | September 23, 2005, 4:48pm | #

I think you have to undergo a frontal lobotomy to work anywhere in public school administration. My guess is that 90% of the parents whose kids enrolled in this school don't support this action. Whether it be zero tollerance or political correctness or this, the stupidity of school administrators never ceases to amaze.

butterbarrel | September 23, 2005, 4:48pm | #

Lesbian mothers would be cool at a Pastafarian academy.

Akira MacKenzie | September 23, 2005, 4:51pm | #

Of course, it has just occurred to me that the conservatives will claim that these parents tried to put their kid into the school for the sole purpose of trying to drum up media attention against it when they expelled her. “…That devious ‘Gay Agenda’ with their intrigues and conspiracies, trying to bring down Christianity with their sodomy and their AIDS.”

Nope, I wouldn't put it past Hanity of Limbaugh for a second.

Akira MacKenzie | September 23, 2005, 4:52pm | #

Edit: Hanity or Limbaugh

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 4:53pm | #

Akira,

No, its "the gay." :)

Larry A | September 23, 2005, 4:54pm | #

I just wonder how many of the parents are married to and sleeping with previously divorced spouses, and thus fall under the biblical definition of "adulteror." After all, that's one of the Big Ten Do-Nots.

Akira MacKenzie | September 23, 2005, 4:55pm | #

Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose parents are homosexual.

Well, the Judeo-Christian God did mention that he does punish the children for the...ahem... "sins" of their parents.

There's a loving deity for you.

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 4:55pm | #

Akira-

You just criticized something that a person might say. Do you oppose free speech?

See, the only way to do that is to include a disclaimer: Obviously you support their freedom to say what they want, and you would never call for any coercive measures to restrict their speech and you respect the right of a private radio station to air whatever they want to air. You are merely exercising your own freedom of speech and your right as a consumer to decide what radio station you listen to. You are no liable for high blood pressure experienced by anybody who misunderstands you. Void where prohibited. No purchase necessary.

OK, that's the last time I'll do it in this thread. I think my point is made.

scape | September 23, 2005, 4:56pm | #

...such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship.

And the obvious follow-up question, how many unmarried hetero couples will be getting refund checks next week?

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 4:56pm | #

Akira,

I liked "Hannity of Limbaugh" better. I always figured that Hannity was birthed from some of Limbaugh's fat (that explains the loss of blubber) after all. Hannity is sort of the social conservative version of Athena in that way. :)

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 4:58pm | #

Akira,

"For the sins of your fathers you, though guiltless, must suffer." - Horace, "Odes," III, 6, l. 1

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 5:00pm | #

Heh. I got two classical references in on the same thread. Momma told me that Greek and Latin learnin' would come in useful some day. :)

Jose Ortega y Gasset | September 23, 2005, 5:01pm | #

If the story were about the son of a hunter tossed out of a private vegan school, I imagine there would be a slightly different tone to the responses. While most libertarians are bright enough to avoid overt hypocrisy, many cannot avoid the temptation of saying the nonrational actions of a nonrational private entity sticks in their craw... particularly when the entity is religious.

Oh, and prove the school is receiving public funding, and then criticize it. To assume this without evidence is just lazy and unworthy of reasonable discourse.

Polaris | September 23, 2005, 5:07pm | #

...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. Exodus 34:7

saw-whet | September 23, 2005, 5:08pm | #

"Hanity of Limbaugh" was funnier.

NoStar | September 23, 2005, 5:10pm | #

Is this the Friday Fun Link?

I mean, what's more fun than lesbians?

The Other John | September 23, 2005, 5:11pm | #

I really need more information before I can decide what to think about this.

Do they have any pictures? Or video?

Jim of Walsh | September 23, 2005, 5:15pm | #

Well, better a child be denied an education than someone send "the wrong message"...

D Allen | September 23, 2005, 5:19pm | #

Oddly, in Ezekiel 20:

"The son shall not bear the iniquity [sin, wickedness] of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 5:24pm | #

Jose Ortega y Gasset,

Its pretty rare these days for private schools to get no public funding from some level of goverment. Apparently words like "likely" and so forth have no meaning to you whatsoever.

If the story were about the son of a hunter tossed out of a private vegan school, I imagine there would be a slightly different tone to the responses.

No, I'd find the policy equally short-sighted, P.C., etc. Nice strawman nonetheless.

...particularly when the entity is religious.

Oh no! Say it isn't so! Some people aren't fond of religion! *gasp* Of course I realize that to you, being fond of the elitist Jose Ortega y Gasset, religion is a means of social control and a way to stop the degradation of modern, capitalist society.

Tom Crick | September 23, 2005, 5:25pm | #

Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose parents are homosexual.

Any questions?

I've got a question!

Does this exclusivity go all the way up the chain of command? ...Is God keeping the children of "homosexuals" out of heaven now? When did this new policy take effect?

...'cause if they're claiming to be Christian, and they're more exclusive about their admissions than God is about admissions into heaven, then I got a big problem with them.

That kid's good enough for the creator of the universe to sacrifice himself for but not good enough to get into their little school? Somebody explain that contradiction to me in theological terms--please.

scape | September 23, 2005, 5:27pm | #

The policy, he added, states that at least one parent cannot engage in practices...

If same sex marriage isn't legal then the school shouldn't recognize the couple as "parents". That leaves the biological father - who hasn't been proven to violate the school policy - as the other parent. Shouldn't the kid be allowed to stay in school?

ChicagoTom | September 23, 2005, 5:29pm | #

Since I don't know if this particular school gets funding from the public or not, I'd like to throw my outrage at the House of Rep. for this Head Start legislation instead

From the article:
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars

Does this qualify as outrageous?

Timothy | September 23, 2005, 5:31pm | #

If the story were about the son of a hunter tossed out of a private vegan school, I imagine there would be a slightly different tone to the responses. While most libertarians are bright enough to avoid overt hypocrisy, many cannot avoid the temptation of saying the nonrational actions of a nonrational private entity sticks in their craw... particularly when the entity is religious.

Well, let's see, of you read thoreau's Standard Libertarian Disclaimer [(C) thoreau 2005], you might change your tune. Man, I guess not even the standard disclaimer is good enough for some people. Ah well.

Save a cow, eat a vegetarian.

ChicagoTom | September 23, 2005, 5:34pm | #

at least one parent cannot engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style...

I wonder if children whose parent's are divorced are being expelled as well? Last I checked divorce is pretty inconsistent with a "positive christian lifestyle". I'm guessing that they have a tiered morality system where some sins are more sinful than others?

Timothy | September 23, 2005, 5:34pm | #

Somebody explain that contradiction to me in theological terms--please

Religion is dumb. Is that concise enough?

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Timothy,

According to the Jose-PC protocols one can't say bad things about religion. :)

Shelby | September 23, 2005, 5:45pm | #

Do they also kick out kids whose parents eat shrimp?

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 5:46pm | #

According to the Jose-PC protocols one can't say bad things about religion. :)

According to some other people on this forum, one can't say bad things about private businesses.

No human institution or organization should be above criticism.

bushwhacked | September 23, 2005, 5:47pm | #

While this school, if indeed completely private, has every right to do this a school like this shows how troublesome Shrub's taxpayer dollars to private schools idea is. Once government crosses this line it will have to decide whether school policies are appropriate and we won't be any further from the contentious social issue debates we have over schools (sex ed, the new push for UD, etc.).

bigbigslacker | September 23, 2005, 5:49pm | #

How do we know both parents are "immoral"? It seems unlikely the sperm came from a lesbian. Or is it immoral to boink a current or future lesian?

Tom Crick | September 23, 2005, 5:57pm | #

Religion is dumb. Is that concise enough?

Some of its practitioners are dumber than others. ...I've noticed that some of the stupidest--regardless of denomination--seem to run religious schools.

Let's hope the people who pay the bills at that place are smarter than the idiots running it.

...It's one thing to be stupid about intelligent design, it's another to publicly deny the value of this kid in God's eyes and continue to call yourself a Christian. ...I think there’s a commandment against that.

Rhywun | September 23, 2005, 5:58pm | #

I'm always amazed at stories like these, where gays & über-Christians mix. Shouldn't the two annihilate each other, like matter & anti-matter?

Timothy | September 23, 2005, 6:02pm | #

Tom: Fair enough. Probably pretty accurate generally, I was mostly being flippant.

Hakluyt | September 23, 2005, 6:03pm | #

thoreau,

According to some other people on this forum, one can't say bad things about private businesses.

I've as yet to see anyone write that.

ChicagoTom | September 23, 2005, 6:10pm | #

I've as yet to see anyone write that.

Not every message that's conveyed is stated explicitly.

Sparky the Wonder Pony | September 23, 2005, 6:12pm | #

The kid probably had trace quantities of lesbianism all over her clothing and therefore presented a health, not to mention moral, risk to the other children.

I don't know why the school simply didn't force the girl to wear a sign saying,"INFECTED WITH LESBIANISM: SUBJECT TO QUARANTINE," and let the other children chase her from the premises at gunpoint.

I mean, where's the fun in having an intolerant religion if you can't really cut loose and victimize people?

Stevo Darkly | September 23, 2005, 6:14pm | #

1) I agree that if the school is completely private, "their school, their rules."

2) Seems like a dumb thing for the school to do, though. If they really believe the kid is being raised in a morally dysfunctional home, then continued attendance is his only change to receive a decent, moral, Christian education, right?

3) Plus, the Christian school could teach the kid that his moms' lifestyle is immoral, and all the while get paid by the two moms to do so, via tuition.

4) And if the two moms objected, they could be the ones who took action to pull the kid out of school. They can hardly insist that the school change its teachings.

5) The only way the school's action could be partly un-dumb is if Christian parents are clamoring to send their kids there, and there is a waiting list to get in. (Which may well be the case.) In this case, the school may be predisposed to expel kids at the drop of a hat, especially if someone on the waiting list has school/church connections. I mean, is a well-known pillar and generous benefactor of the community.

I really don't think this is what Jesus would do.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | September 23, 2005, 6:18pm | #

(sigh)

First, provide some data on the percentage of private, religious K-12 schools that receive public funding. Second, demonstrate that this particular private, religious school receives public funding. I will wager that this particular religious school does not receive public funds. In the unlikely event it does, that gravy train is about to jump the tracks.

Speaking of strawmen, I did not say that one ought not criticize religion. I merely observed that religion tends to provoke some libertarians. They cannot seem to let this pass without giving into the temptation of pointing out what they feel is the apparent hypocrisy of the school's actions... as if this personal disapproval means anything. Most libertarians support the freedom of association... it just seems to give many gas pains when the freedom is exercised by a religious entity.

Finally, thank you Kreskin, but my fondness to Ortega y Gasset is related to big game hunting. You want to keep arguing like this, please use a tissue to clean up when you're done.

Stevo Darkly | September 23, 2005, 6:26pm | #

his only change = his only chance

Jose -- earlier this week there was a thread, which I only skimmed, about "people who enjoy watching sports" vs. "people who don't enjoy watching sports" that came close to eliciting charges of bigotry. I saw a few small parallels to our occasional theist/atheist brouhahas here.

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 7:09pm | #

Jean Bart-

You aren't very good at reading between lines, are you?

anon | September 23, 2005, 7:27pm | #

http://www.ocschools.org/about/admissions.cfm

Apparently they require a "Family Interview". I wonder if the interview took place if the parents lied to get her in the school.

I wonder exactly what the conversation was at the football game.

Frank | September 23, 2005, 7:32pm | #

Jose, I still don't understand what you're saying... I can say that Christians have a right to practice their religion, while at the same time thinking (And saying) that they're idiots for even being religious in the first place. I don't see how that's a contradiction. Same thing that most of us would say that the Klan has a right to free speech, but they're still fucking morons. If anything, I think that what you're seeing is something called "integrity". It's a lost virtue in this country these days.

Tom Crick | September 23, 2005, 7:45pm | #

"I merely observed that religion tends to provoke some libertarians. They cannot seem to let this pass without giving into the temptation of pointing out what they feel is the apparent hypocrisy of the school's actions... as if this personal disapproval means anything."

Speaking for myself...

Some libertarians harbor Christian tendencies; indeed, some libertarians might even be Christians. ...I know of some people with libertarian tendencies that predicate their libertarianism on their Christian beliefs. ...and it's easy to see how.

...The Golden Rule sounds a lot like "Your rights begin where other people's end.", doesn't it? Indeed, lurking behind the bit about rights, some people answer questions about why we should afford a special value to people's rights with remarkably Christian responses.

Given that, it isn't hard to imagine some libertarians criticizing this school's policy not only as libertarians but also as Christians.

...but even if a libertarian isn't a Christian, what's wrong with pointing out that the discriminatory policy of a private, Christian institution is inconsistent with the basic principles of Christianity?

joshua corning | September 23, 2005, 7:48pm | #

yeah cuz there is no point in trying to save the soul of child when his parents are going to hell...this doesn't even make sense from the christian view point.

J | September 23, 2005, 8:08pm | #

I took Jose's comment (at least his second one, which seemed more clear) to be referring more generally to a strong anti-religious sentiment that pops up here on most threads about something stupid/hypocritical/evil done by someone in the name of religion. I don't think it's been strong at all on this thread, but on others it's overpowering. It manifests itself in various ways, including exaggeration of the harm done by, and/or willful ignorance the good done by, various religious institutions... comically stupid and condescending caricatures of religious beliefs... general expressions of disdain about the stupidity or weakness of anyone who's not an atheist, etc....
But like I said, I don't think that's really happened on this thread, so it doesn't seem like the best place for that argument (if that is his argument).

Ruthless | September 23, 2005, 8:21pm | #

I wouldn't get my hopes too high about Jesus. He cursed an olive tree.
Talk about kicking a fireplug.

Martha fumbled the baton from Jesus in the existential relay race. Seems The Donald has already lured her over to the Dark Side.
Whatcha gonna do?

Stevo Darkly | September 23, 2005, 8:26pm | #

Some libertarians harbor Christian tendencies; indeed, some libertarians might even be Christians.

Present.

Given that, it isn't hard to imagine some libertarians criticizing this school's policy not only as libertarians but also as Christians.

Present.

I think what may have set Jose off, and what irked me just very slightly, were:

1) "This school dumb" is to "religion dumb" as "Enron bad" is to "capitalism bad."

2) Some people seemed downright eager to assume the school was receiving gov't funds, ... implying an eagerness to seek a gov't remedy?

3) Some of the ridicule was based on the false assumption that the school considered the kid sinful, rather than attemting to sanction the parents. I think that if you're going to mock something -- however mockable it might be -- at least know what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just bad style.

Just as it grits my teeth when critics of evolution say, "If people descended from chimpanzees, how come we still have chimpanzees, haaaa? And if one species evolves into another, how come we've not once seen a fish give birth to a frog, haaaa?"

Or when somebody says, "Libertarians want to build a utopia where all community decisions are made by WalMart, everyone carries a gun, children smoke crack, and we all live happily ever after." For some reason, that brand of stuff really chalkboards my fingernails. No doubt I take it more seriously than I should.

thoreau | September 23, 2005, 8:27pm | #

Totally off-topic, but I was looking through the archives and found something that people here might find interesting:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2003/09/everybody_knows.shtml

Check out the last non-spam post at the bottom, stamped 12:57 pm.

Tom Crick | September 23, 2005, 8:42pm | #

Present

Anarchists can't be Christians--everybody knows that. ...and Christians can't work with HR people on a regular basis.

...just kidding! ; )

Tom Crick | September 23, 2005, 8:46pm | #

It's funny lookin' back at the archives and seeing people who used to post here way back when...

What ever happened to Sir Real? ...and where the heck is Mo? Has anyone seen or heard from Mo lately?

Stevo Darkly | September 23, 2005, 9:05pm | #

Tom C: I had some follow-up e-mails with three or four people after the Chicago get-together. Mo has had computer troubles -- said he was only using it when he really needed to, I think. Plus he's been really busy lately. I did seem him pop up occasionally.

I'm sure he'll be back once he gets his computer fixed and things slow down for him.

fyodor | September 23, 2005, 9:10pm | #

thoreau,

I checked out your url. Interesting comment there. See, he wasn't all bad! :-) But then, the air around here does seem a bit easier to breathe without him...

msfbecfin | September 23, 2005, 9:31pm | #

Their school. Their rules.

Comment by: ed at September 23, 2005 04:33 PM


It's a Christian school.
Christians are against homosexuality.
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose parents are homosexual.

Any questions?

Comment by: passingthru at September 23, 2005 04:48 PM

Sure, it's their school, and they can keep/reject whom they please. It certainly appears not to be "Christian" in the sense of what Christ taught, however - if he gave his life for us sinners, surely he'd let a little kid stay in school. The hypocrites - they THINK they're punishing the parents (what happened to Christ's admonition that it should be s/he who is without sin who casts the first stone), but it's the kid they're hurting. Query whether the school might be subject to a suit for false advertising.

Apostate Jew | September 23, 2005, 10:30pm | #

In Exodus 34:7, God was bluntly suggesting to Moses that the Jews better fall in line and obey the law or he was gonna put the smackdown on them "unto the third and to the fourth generation".

This is normal because the Jews, chosen people that they are, are supposed to adhere to higher standards or face the consequences. Our God tends to be more tolerant of Gentiles, except when they get in His or our way (when we are righteously following his orders to kill, conquer, etc.).

Don't get in His way. He's not your Christian God of love, efter all.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 1:11am | #

Jose (aka, Heidegger wannabe),

(sigh)

First, provide some data on the percentage of private, religious K-12 schools that receive public funding.

Why? Public funding of private schools (religious or otherwise) is common. I guess it must be rare, and that's why there are so many court challenges to the various types of practices in place.

Second, demonstrate that this particular private, religious school receives public funding.

I e-mailed their administrator earlier today. I'll see if I get a response.

...as if this personal disapproval means anything.

Yes, freedom of speech, get used to it (you being a fan of old Jose I know you despise such things - Jose being an elitist, aristocrat loving fucker and all).

Also, one has to ask what exactly does your personal disapproval of atheists mean exactly?

...it just seems to give many gas pains when the freedom is exercised by a religious entity.

I find any ideology opposed to individual liberty to be troublesome in that way. Doesn't mean I am going to ask the government to go after them though.

Boo hoo. Can't hear the bad things being said about religion; must cover ears and whine.

Grow up and quit being such a whiny little baby.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | September 24, 2005, 5:41am | #

Forget the tissue; use a towel.

I adore free speech... it makes it much easier to determine who is an idiot. My frustration with the knee jerk libertarian impulse to kick religion is the political stupidity. In America where a majority of voters purport some degree of religion or spirituality, this habit ensures libertarian politicians remain slightly more popular than sex offenders. You are the answer for the question: If libertarians are so smart, why can't they win elections?

The libertarian mocking religion 1) does not change the minds of the faithful; 2) does not change the minds of the faithless. From where I sit, the only discernable result is that the general electorate will continue to see libertarians as a bunch of arrogant asshats. But hey, you are obviously too busy being right to worry about actually advancing the cause of individual liberty.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 6:53am | #

Hakluyt-

Maybe it would be helpful if you just presented a form in which public aid sometimes reaches religious schools. Are you talking about vouchers? CA doesn't have them. Federal grants for some specific program? School lunches? Special ed? What?

I'm not asking you to investigate this particular school, just to point out a few ways that such aid might come about.

Frank | September 24, 2005, 8:18am | #

My frustration with the knee jerk libertarian impulse to kick religion is the political stupidity.


Jose, what you're saying makes perfect sense. But in reality, all of us who are registered, voting Libertarians have already thrown away any *real* chance of having a *real* impact on major elections, at least in our lifetime. We do it voluntarily, knowing that we're considered "out there" by "normal" people. So if most people already consider us a bit off, why compromise on something as ridiculous as religion? Again, I see it as an issue of integrity. Personally, I'm gonna stand for what I believe in. Otherwise, I could just cave in and choose Republican/Democrat and compromise *most* of my beliefs.

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 8:44am | #

"From where I sit, the only discernable result is that the general electorate will continue to see libertarians as a bunch of arrogant asshats. But hey, you are obviously too busy being right to worry about actually advancing the cause of individual liberty."

I agree that libertarians could do more to appeal to Christians, but I also think Christians could do more to appeal to libertarians.

Libertarians are part of the swing vote--more so, I suspect, now that neoconservatives, budget pigs and evangelicals have worked so hard to alienate us from the Republican Party. The swing vote doesn't seem so important when government isn't divided among the parties, but that situation won't last forever.

...Once the Security Moms grind their swords back into SUVs and become Soccer Moms again, we may find ourselves the prettiest girl at the dance. ...and when I hold my finger up in the air--no I'm not just flicking off the evangelicals--I think I can feel the wind shifting.

Phillip J Fry | September 24, 2005, 10:04am | #

looks like another child *ahem* left behind thanks to the christian right. You get that? a reference to both the book series and the education initative. That my friends is gold.

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 12:13pm | #

"...The Golden Rule sounds a lot like "Your rights begin where other people's end.", doesn't it?"

I guess that should have been the other way around, but you know what I meant, right?

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:19pm | #

Jose,

Why exactly should libertarians be pandering to folks who don't agree with any of the positions of libertarians? Also, unlike thoreau, I'm not someone who gets gets existential angst from poor performance in elections.

But hey, you are obviously too busy being right to worry about actually advancing the cause of individual liberty.

How does pandering to anti-liberty, religious types advance the cause of liberty?

MJ | September 24, 2005, 12:20pm | #

"Um, is this what Jesus would really want?"-thoreau

However, Jesus would handle this situation, if He does indeed view homosexual acts as immoral He would certainly tell the lesbian couple to "go and sin no more". Jesus preaching seems to me to put punishment for sin as God's domain, not man's. The school, I believe, sees that by admitting this child they are implicitly condoning couple's lifstyle. The majority of posters and staff here think that not condoning homosexual behavior is an action worthy of condemnation.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:22pm | #

Folks like Jose (aka, wannabe Heidegger) are always going on about the benefits of pandering to some particular group. However, the main benefit seems to fall with the group being pandered to, whereas libertarians just end up feeling like a used condom in the process. No thanks.

joe | September 24, 2005, 12:30pm | #

"I've as yet to see anyone write that."

Yo, Gary Hakluyt, would you care to dig up the posts in which I wrote that I opposed capitalism, didn't believe in property rights, or thought ordinary people were incapable of making wise decisions about development or retirement? Thanks, hon.

thoreau, Hakluyt may not be very good at reading between the lines, but he certainly is enthusiastic enough.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:31pm | #

thoreau,

I think you should be more concerned with what Paul wanted, since its Paul's work that makes up the bulk of the New Testament.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:35pm | #

...would you care to dig up the posts in which I wrote that I opposed capitalism...

Never wrote that you did or didn't.

...didn't believe in property rights...

You wrote that they were unimportant; then you claimed that you were just joking. Of course your statement didn't have any emoticons, etc., and the language wasn't obviously sarcastic, so I'd say that you were serious.

...thought ordinary people were incapable of making wise decisions about development...

In regards to Kelo you called the property owners dupes of the IJ. That's the sort of elitist statement I'd expect from someone in government.

No, I'm not going to go digging up posts. You know very well what you wrote and trying to be coy about the matter says enough by itself.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:38pm | #

joe,

Also, also I recall regarding your statement on property rights it took you several statements to finally come up with the 'just joking' line.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:50pm | #

joe,

Seeing ordinary people who fight the so-called "beneficence" of government as dupes (or worse) is a common thread that runs throughout "reform" movements in U.S. history. The benighted masses must sit and wait for decisions from those in government so they can know how to properly order their lives. This is at the heart of the "Progressive" movement (which is why forced sterilization of "inferior" people was such a popular idea amongst a group of people considered today as liberal heroes) for example.

hugo | September 24, 2005, 12:55pm | #

to that hakluyt character

Sir,

I'm an atheist myself and I find your discussion style totally obnoxious. You are intolerably inpolite, arrogant and rude. Shame on you! People like you give atheism a bad name.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 12:56pm | #

One of the things that strikes you when you look at the Progressive era (a period that most pro-government types hail) was just how elitist and racist this "reform" period was. Probably the shining example of this is the creation of the ABA - in collusion with state and local governments - as a means to weed out non-WASP attorneys from the field of law. Zoning laws were born out of the same desire to properly segregate society, and you still see their segregating effect today.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 1:00pm | #

hugo,

Heh. If you don't like the anti-liberty reality of religious types that isn't my problem.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 1:02pm | #

hugo,

I'll note that, whatever can be written of my style, you appear to take no issue with the substance of my statements. Which speaks volumes I must say.

joe | September 24, 2005, 1:21pm | #

"In regards to Kelo you called the property owners dupes of the IJ."

Would you care to find the statement in which I called the property owners dupes of the IJ?

Oh, I see you wouldn't. There's a shocker. Could it be that you pulled it out of your ass?

"Seeing ordinary people who fight the so-called "beneficence" of government as dupes (or worse) is a common thread that runs throughout "reform" movements in U.S. history. The benighted masses must sit and wait for decisions from those in government so they can know how to properly order their lives. This is at the heart of the "Progressive" movement (which is why forced sterilization of "inferior" people was such a popular idea amongst a group of people considered today as liberal heroes) for example." Ahem. I've yet to see anyone write that. Ahem.

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 1:31pm | #

"The school, I believe, sees that by admitting this child they are implicitly condoning couple's lifstyle."

I'd like to suggest to the Christians that continue to pay tuition to this school, and/or make donations, that they're implicitly condoning this school's un-Christian admission policy.

"The majority of posters and staff here think that not condoning homosexual behavior is an action worthy of condemnation."

The majority of commenters here--and maybe one staff member--think that a Christian school discriminating against children in this way is sufficiently remarkable to merit a remark.

J | September 24, 2005, 1:44pm | #

"Why exactly should libertarians be pandering to folks who don't agree with any of the positions of libertarians?"

Gary McHakkingbart,

The problem is not being so scornful of anti-liberty religious types. The problem is being so scornful of all religious types, or assuming that all religious types are necessarily anti-liberty. That position is so self-evidently stupid that there's not much point in even addressing it. And I have a sneaking suspicion that you're well aware of this distinction that Jose was making (and Stevo and I too), but you're being deliberately obtuse. What's up with that?

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:00pm | #

Hakluyt-

Thanks for informing me about the authorship of the New Testament. It was very nice of you to offer me that free education, and it's a shame that it turned out to be superfluous. See, I learned in Catholic school that Paul's letters are written by Paul.

I suggest you learn a thing or two about what's taught in Catholic schools before you embarass yourself any further.

Also, there's a big difference between being somebody's gimp and simply learning how to present your ideas in a polite manner to people who disagree with you on some things. It's one thing to poke fun at fundies. I, like any good Catholic, devote a considerable amount of time to mocking fundies. It's another thing to mock religious people in general, seeing as how religious people run the gamut in their opinions on, well, just about everything.

And yes, I know, your prime concern isn't the electoral prospects of the LP. Neither is mine, believe it or not. But if you ascribe any worth at all to your ideas, and have any interest in communicating your ideas to other people in a manner that might interest them, it helps to not display quite so much condescension toward religious people. Whatever benefit you might see in such persuasion, be it electoral benefit or social benefit or personal satisfaction or whatever, suppressing your display of condescension can be a useful tool.

Finally, I suggest you stop misrepresenting the opinions of everybody else before you embarass yourself any further.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:03pm | #

joe,

You know what you wrote. If your conscience is so jaded that you can deny it with a straight face that is fine. Why is that it every time you demand that I look up a statement for you I end up being, well, you know, right? You must like the attention I guess. :)

BTW, I've made this charge on a number of occassions, and its only now, weeks and weeks later that you are now challenging it. That tells me you are up to your typical bullshit. if indeed my claim was erroneous you'd have attacked it long ago.

Ahem. I've yet to see anyone write that. Ahem.

If you don't like your ideology's history I suggest that you drop your ideology.

J,

The problem is being so scornful of all religious types, or assuming that all religious types are necessarily anti-liberty.

The problem is that they are. The religiously (and thus irrationally) oriented fall basically into one or another of categories of groups that want to use government to limit liberty (in generally significant ways) in some fashion or another.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:10pm | #

thoreau,

Any serious Catholic is as much a fundamentalist as Protestants are. They are just fundamentalist in their worship of the Pope and Catholic doctrine (oh, and "foggy windows" that look like the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:11pm | #

thoreau,

...suppressing your display of condescension can be a useful tool.

Not for my purposes.

agentalbert | September 24, 2005, 2:20pm | #

The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars

Chicago Tom wrote: Does this qualify as outrageous?


No more so that institutions that practice discrimination by affirmitive action getting federal tax dollars.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:21pm | #

Hakluyt-

If you define "serious" as a synonym for "fundamentalist" then you are of course right, and serious Catholics are as bad as Protestant fundamentalists. But then most Catholics aren't "serious" under that definition. The Franciscans and the School Sisters of Notre Dame, the two orders that I know best, certainly aren't in that category.

But many Catholics who consider themselves serious about their faith use the word "serious" in a sense different than you use it. Maybe they simply haven't thought through the implications of their faith. You should get a job at a seminary or Catholic college, and teach Catholics the real meaning of their faith. No doubt they'd benefit from your instruction, and would finally understand that they simply haven't been taking things seriously enough.

I guess it takes an atheist to teach us the true meaning of faith. If Jesus had only had somebody like you around, to steer him right...

Oh, and what are your purposes? Besides pissing off everybody that you debate?

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:23pm | #

Come to think of it, most Protestants in the US aren't fundamentalists either. I guess what American theists really need is somebody like Hakluyt to help them take their faith more seriously.

A Man of Wealth and Taste | September 24, 2005, 2:26pm | #

If Jesus had only had somebody like you around, to steer him right...

I was there when Jesus Christ had his moment of doubt and pain. Made damn sure that Pilate washed his hands and sealed his fate.

joe | September 24, 2005, 2:29pm | #

Hak, I think I've made my point. I also think I got your goat.

You once said you were such a dislikable character because you enjoyed mocking me. I've gotta tell you, you don't seem to be having much fun.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:36pm | #

thoreau,

No, I define fundamentalist as historians, etc. of religion do; as a system of thought concerned with returning to and/or maintaining what the adherents consider the foundational principles of the religion in question. That quite frankly is what JP II, the Pontifical College of North American. etc. claim(ed) that they stood/stand for.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:39pm | #

And joe beats a hasty retreat.

_____________

Or is that the Pontifical North American College?

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:41pm | #

thoreau,

And of course that is what JP II, etc. considered to be a serious, within the fold, properly minded, etc. Catholic.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:42pm | #

Hakluyt-

I don't want to get into a debate over the proper usage of the word "fundamentalist". But to say that all serious Catholics are fundamentalists in any sense of the word is to display a significant amount of ignorance about Catholics, especially American Catholics (both laity and clergy).

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:43pm | #

I suggest you sit down and talk to some Catholics below the rank of Cardinal (and not members of Opus Dei) before you embarass yourself any further.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:44pm | #

thoreau,

BTW, its not my fault that you're aligned with a thought system which believes that statues bleed or sweat, fountains associated with "saints" have curative powers, etc.

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 2:44pm | #

"The problem is that they are. The religiously (and thus irrationally) oriented fall basically into one or another of categories of groups that want to use government to limit liberty (in generally significant ways) in some fashion or another."

I respectfully disagree. There are protestant denominations that are extremely mistrustful of government.

Some encourage members to claim conscientious objector status if they're drafted. ...Many lean pro-choice on the grounds that the banning of abortion respresents an intrusion by the church into affairs of the state. ...Many opposed Bush's "compassionate conservatism" because they thought it an invitation for regulation of church activities.

It's hard to put Unitarians, Adventists, Quakers, etc. into the same category with Baptists and Evangelicals unless--as you appear to have done--you put them all under the heading "irrational". I remain skeptical of the idea that it's only rational to believe in something if there's "objective" evidence. ...It still seems to me that in a situation where "objective" evidence is impossible, then one can go, to a certain extent, with the evidence at hand. At any rate, I don't think anyone can support the statement that all Christian groups want to use the government, on some level, to limit liberty.

...I think you're right to point out--as you've done in the past--that the religious contribution to progressive causes has been overstated--especially in the case of abolition. ...but I also think it's true that Christianity had a role in the cultural development of the idea that people, as well as their rights, are inherently valuable.

I'd also like to say that while I'm usually the first to jump into the fray, in this case, I hope Hakluyt, joe and--is thoreau in this too now?--all bury the hatchet, regardless of who's wrong--real soon.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:45pm | #

Hakluyt, the most fundamentalist Catholic that I know is deeply embarassed by stories of bleeding statues and whatnot.

For a guy who claims to know so much you sure display a lot of ignorance.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:47pm | #

Tom Crick-

What am I doing wrong here? I'm basically saying that he's painting all religion with way too broad a brush. Is that such an unreasonable stance?

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:48pm | #

Thoreau,

But to say that all serious Catholics are fundamentalists in any sense of the word is to display a significant amount of ignorance about Catholics, especially American Catholics (both laity and clergy).

Well, as we are all aware, the Papacy under JPII and his successor has serious issues with the American church, so you make my point. Also, do you acknowledge that authority is found in the Papacy? Or are you some sort of throwback Conciliarist?

...and clergy).

The clergy coming out of the Pontifical North American College are dominated by JP II clones.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:52pm | #

Tom Crick,

Most of the Unitarians and Quakers I know favor all the programs associated with "liberals" (being an atheist I've been to a number of UU and Quaker services), which of course are a limit to liberty.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 2:53pm | #

Hakluyt-

You're beyond convincing. You just want to talk trash about a group of people who are far more complicated, diverse, and sophisticated than you realize.

I'm done. I see Tom Crick's point. This is a waste of time. Post whatever you want, you can have the last word.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Thoreau,

You point out one of the main fissures in American Catholic thought; many of you want to remain part of the Church and accept the Papacy as the ultimate authority but you don't want all of the policy-oriented baggage that comes with that. Nevetheless, the last two heads of your faith have stated, to paraphrase, that serious Catholics will be fundamentalist Catholics who accept the teachings of the Church as promulgated by the papacy.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 2:57pm | #

And thoreau beats a hasty retreat.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 3:02pm | #

Thoreau,

...complicated, diverse, and sophisticated...

Oh they are certainly quite complex, diverse, etc., nevertheless an overarching theme of every religion is that the adherents oppose some variety of liberty. Note that Tom Crick basically argued that since UU's don't support Bush they aren't really anti-liberty, but the fact is that in other areas they are indeed anti-liberty (and I don't even want to get into the complicated discussion of whether the war was anti-liberty or not).

joe | September 24, 2005, 3:20pm | #

The word "fundamentalist" actually has a theological meaning, and it is not "idiot."

The term "fundamentalist," when applied to Christianity, refers to a return to the fundamentals of the faith, and implies that any changes and developments since the first century AD are corruptions of the true faith.

Hence, the term "fundamentalist Catholic" is a contradiction in terms, as Catholic doctrine teaches that such sources as tradition and the teachings of the Vatican are as legitimate as sources of truth as the Bible. So, knock it off.

Oh, and as far as "fundamentalist" Christians go: fine, be that way, pursue a return to the true faith of the Apostles. But if you aren't donating all of your property to be held in common ownership among the members of your church, you aren't a fundamentalist. You're just old fashioned.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 3:20pm | #

Thoreau,

Your basic problem is that I don't put any stock in your stupid religion. How any rational person can go along with such horseshit is beyond me. Of course since most lay Catholics don't as a rule actually read the Bible (I've had numerous Catholic friends tell me that their belief isn't Bible-centered, which is why they so rarely read it) I guess its not that surprising (despite all their talk about it otherwise, you can generally say the same thing about Protestants too).

I mean come on? World-wide floods which have no geographic evidence of their existance? All the animals in the world in one ark? Water into wine? Loaves and fishes? The sun standing still for a day? Raising the dead? Burning bushes? The plagues of Egypt (ahh yes, killing innocent children - nice!). An Ark of the Covenant that kills when touched? Curing lepers, the blind, etc. If you hadn't been raised in that religion, would you actually take this bullshit seriously? No, in all liklihood you'd take it as seriously as you do the idea that Athena sprang from the body of Zeus. Or the story that Isis resurrected the dead Osiris so she could bone him and thus have Horus.

joe | September 24, 2005, 3:21pm | #

"And joe beats a hasty retreat."

"And thoreau beats a hasty retreat."

Translated from the original French, that reads "Oh, running away are you? Come back, I'll bite your legs off!"

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 3:27pm | #

joe,

I've used the term properly. You're using it as refers to "fundamentalist Protestants," particularly the variety who argue for a return to the "primitive" Church of the 1st century. These include Baptists, members of the Church of Christ, etc.

All the term fundamentalist means of course is what I've written that it means; a system of thought concerned with returning to and/or maintaining what the adherents consider the foundational principles of the religion in question. The parameters of what that means for Catholics are different for what it means for Protestants; that doesn't mean that you don't have both fundamentalist Catholics and fundamentalist Protestants. Your problem is that you are simply confusing the popular version of what fundamentalism refers to with what those who study religions have discussed.

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 3:29pm | #

"Most of the Unitarians and Quakers I know favor all the programs associated with "liberals" (being an atheist I've been to a number of UU and Quaker services), which of course are a limit to liberty."

Well that leaves me with the Adventists then.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sda.htm

You might also take a look at the magazine--over a hundred years old--put out by the only political organization the Adventists have ever funded--at least the only one of which I'm aware. I understand it became a seperate organization from the church in 1946., but I believe they still take up offerings for it) ...It's devoted to the separation of church and state, and, when I was familiar with it, it used to fund legal cases provide counsel to cases involving the separation between church and state, fund the magazine, etc.

http://www.libertymagazine.org/

Take a look at the article "Humility and Freedom". ...I don't think you'll find an atheist organization as passionate about the separation of church and state as these Christians are.

...Please note, I consider it tragic that Farwell renamed his coalition something with "Liberty" in the title--please also note that this isn't that organization. Like I said, these guys have been around for a hundred years.

Oh, and the Adventist Church--at least when I was more familiar with it (through the late eighties I would say)--hadn't taken a position on abortion or any other political cause. ...The separation between church and state is all but fundamental to this religion.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 3:31pm | #

joe and Thoreau's response can be more accurately described this way:

"Run away! Run away!"

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 3:33pm | #

Tom Crick,

Again, you're referring to a specific issue. As is obvious from my statements I am discussing the entire universe of liberty issues.

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 3:33pm | #

thoreau,

"What am I doing wrong here?"

Nothing! Like I said, I'm usually the first guy to dive in. ...and I've learned so much from all three of you.

...I just don't like seeing my three favorite commenters--well, three of my four favorite commenters--go after each other. Let's go take on the torture apologists or something!

Tom Crick | September 24, 2005, 3:39pm | #

"Again, you're referring to a specific issue. As is obvious from my statements I am discussing the entire universe of liberty issues."

...please understand my point. I'm--as you can probably tell--when I was young, I was more familiar with Adventism than I ever wanted to be, and I'm not aware of any way in which this organization of fundamentalist protestants falls into a category that wants to limit liberty through government.

They're a bunch of libertarians waiting to happen. I even managed to persuade several to vote for Badnarik in the last election. ...Now, there's only 13 million of them or so, but they're there and they don't want to limit our liberty through government.

trollumination | September 24, 2005, 3:53pm | #

Real question for libertarians here - if everything is privatized, what is to stop the establishment of a self-contained religious tyranny? If you say "nothing", but agree that it's good because it's consistent with Libertarian axioms, you miss out on the fact that people will only accept Libertarianism if it seems GOOD for them! Like, if it has "utility" as Mill would say.

trollumination | September 24, 2005, 3:55pm | #

And remember, you can't spell "Libertarianism" without "liberty", or maybe you can. I dunno.

Hakluyt | September 24, 2005, 3:58pm | #

Tom Crick,

No need to worry. joe, I and Thoreau always lock horns and somehow seem to get over it.

Unfortunately I can't seem to get that adventist website to load. It may be my internet security protocols.

MJ | September 24, 2005, 4:11pm | #

Wow, this thread is deteriorating rapidly.

With way things are going, anyone want to start a pool as to which date the "Hakluyt" persona suffers the same fate as the "Gary Gunnels" persona?

I call 10/15/05!

joe | September 24, 2005, 4:37pm | #

Hak,

A "Fundamentalist Catholic" would either reject the changes in doctrine and practice that have come about through tradition and Vatican teaching (and thus, not be a Catholic, or at least not a "good" one); accept tham (and thus, not be a fundamentalist); or accept only some of them while rejecting others (and thus, not be much of either).

You can call yourself a "Fundamentalist Catholic," and base your beliefs and practices around those of the early Church, but by doing so, you are rejecting the doctrines that have emerged since then, thereby taking yourself out of communion with the mothership, and ceasing to be a "real" Catholic. Whereas with Protestant evangelicals, there is not objective standard by which to measure the orthodoxy of belief, other than those endoresed by each individual congregation or grouping, and no such set of teachings that they have to adhere to in order to qualify.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 4:53pm | #

joe-

Join me in the retreat.

Doctor thoreau ran away
Bravely ran away, away
When Hakluyt reared his ornery head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes Doctor thoreau turned about
He ran away and chickened out

I know I said I'd give the last word, but, well, this is just too much fun!

joe | September 24, 2005, 5:03pm | #

Brave Brave Brave
Planner joe...

Who almost fought the dreaded Jean of Bart

Who nearly stood up to the feared Croesus of Hakluyt...

And who personally wet himself in a debate about Penn Coal.

God, I am such a fucking nerd.

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 5:19pm | #

thoreau: Is there someone else in there we can talk to?

He of many names: No, I'm French. Why do you think I have this outrageous temper, silly physicist?

thoreau | September 24, 2005, 5:20pm | #

OK, that was just bad. I'm in a hurry, hence I didn't even get the order of the lines right.

Oh, well.

Jennifer | September 24, 2005, 7:06pm | #

Translated from the original French, that reads "Oh, running away are you? Come back, I'll bite your legs off!"

The most brilliant and beautiful use of a Monty Python reference I've ever seen here.

Phil | September 24, 2005, 8:11pm | #

The school, I believe, sees that by admitting this child they are implicitly condoning couple's lifstyle.

How on earth can this possibly be so? How is allowing the child to be educated in the school condoning how the parents live?

Aidan Maconachy | September 24, 2005, 8:51pm | #

Sins of the Mothers? How about the society?

Targeting these two individuals seems a bit arbitrary to me. We all need to get the ground rules straight on issues like this so people know where they stand. In the meantime ... no lynchings!

independent worm | September 24, 2005, 11:40pm | #

It's a Christian school.
Christians are against homosexuality.
Therefore, the Christian school is against admitting children whose parents are homosexual.

Any questions?

Yes. In the same passage from which this alleged opposition to homosexuality is derived, God commands Lot to fuck his daughters, which he does (after getting drunk). Does that mean Christians are in favor of drunken incest?

Wait, let me guess.

DB | September 25, 2005, 12:52am | #

Oh, and as far as "fundamentalist" Christians go: fine, be that way, pursue a return to the true faith of the Apostles. But if you aren't donating all of your property to be held in common ownership among the members of your church, you aren't a fundamentalist. You're just old fashioned

"Fundamentalist" isn't usually a self-applied term, so it is unreasonable to insist that fundamentalists adhere to the implications of the label.

Most fundamentalists, in my experience, just call themselves "Christians".

DB | September 25, 2005, 1:19am | #

Yes. In the same passage from which this alleged opposition to homosexuality is derived, God commands Lot to fuck his daughters, which he does (after getting drunk).

You're confused. Christian opposition to homosexuality isn't based on the Genesis story of Sodom and Gommorrah; it is based on Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which state that male homosexuality is an abomination and that men who have sex with each other must be put to death.

Also, God didn't command Lot to "fuck his daughters". Lot's daughters came up with the plan (Genesis 19:31-32):

And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth: Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Christianity may be silly an contradictory, but that's no excuse for not familiarizing yourself with the literature before you criticize it.

js | September 25, 2005, 3:35am | #

Other issues aside, if the attitude of the school is strongly anti-gay, then it's probably far preferable they just expel the kid (like they did) to get an education elsewhere, rather than continue to keep the kid in an environment where the authority figures and far worse the peer group are strongly anti-gay (can you imagine what internal conflicts that kid would have?).

Phil | September 25, 2005, 9:37am | #

"Fundamentalist" isn't usually a self-applied term, so it is unreasonable to insist that fundamentalists adhere to the implications of the label.

Um, it is to the extent that the churches and groups usually described so can trace their dogma and practices back to the publishing of, and growth stemming from, the publishing of The Fundamentals back in the early part of the 20th century. It isn't just a phrase that their critics made up.

Twba | September 25, 2005, 12:32pm | #

Totally off-topic, but I was looking through the archives...

Someone has an interesting hobby.

thoreau | September 25, 2005, 2:05pm | #

Twba-

I said something nostalgic about Mona. Somebody else challenged me on whether she was really such a great commenter. So I googled for old threads with her and stumbled across the post in question.

My conclusion, incidentally, is that Mona was indeed an asset to the forum.

Twba | September 25, 2005, 2:41pm | #

Relax, I'm laughing with you not at you.

DB | September 25, 2005, 3:22pm | #

Um, it is to the extent that the churches and groups usually described so can trace their dogma and practices back to the publishing of, and growth stemming from, the publishing of The Fundamentals back in the early part of the 20th century.

Of course, to the extent that that is true, joe's claim that they call themselves "fundamentalists" because they want to be like the early church is still false. Fundamentalism is about returning to Christ's original teachings (or their perception of them, anyway), not about returning to how people did things a few generations after Jesus died.

It isn't just a phrase that their critics made up.

I didn't say their critics made it up, I said it wasn't usually a self-applied term. I grew up around a lot of fundamentalists -- Southern Baptists and Pentacostals, mainly -- and I don't think I ever heard any of them call themselves that. They just called themselves Christians, and said they were following Christ's teachings; the first I ever heard of "The Fundamentals" was in a college history class.

Fat White Guy | September 25, 2005, 4:13pm | #

I do not see what educating the child has to do with being homosexual. You would think they would jump at the opportunity to expose the child to their way of thinking.

MJ | September 25, 2005, 5:30pm | #

"How is allowing the child to be educated in the school condoning how the parents live?"-Phil

The people raising a student are going to be participating in school events and functions. The other students in the school are going to be interacting with the lesbian couple. The thought process I believe goes like this: how can we remain true to our belief that homosexual relationships are sinful and teach that to the students while we have a homosexual couple apparently in good standing sending a child to our school?

From what I can see the school administrators are trying to avoid being hypocritical, not punish the child and not even punish the couple. I thought hypocrisy was the most mortal sin in Reasonoid land. I guess that's only true when the hyprocrite stands for something you do not approve of.

Tom Crick | September 25, 2005, 6:12pm | #

"I thought hypocrisy was the most mortal sin in Reasonoid land. I guess that's only true when the hyprocrite stands for something you do not approve of."

I don't know about Reasonoid land--while they seem to expect a certain amount of internal consistency, I think Reasonids can be a pretty pragmatic bunch.

...but I've always interpreted "Thou shall not take the Lord's name in vain." as a commandment against hypocrisy.

...The people of Christian Land were once known for taking those commandments pretty seriously. I know there are a lot of cultural Christians who don't take the teachings of Jesus seriously at all yet insist on nailing the Ten Commandments up in every public space where they aren't allowed.

Do you think people like that are a relatively new phenomenon? ...I guess there were a lot of slave holders way back when that were like that. ...and I suppose a lot of Klan activity was based on that kind of thing. ...I suppose people like that will always be with us.

Happy Jack | September 25, 2005, 7:58pm | #

I'd be suprised if the school receives any state funding. California appears to have a strict Blaine Amendment

kwais | September 25, 2005, 8:44pm | #

"From the article:
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars

Does this qualify as outrageous?"

No, not really. That government forces people to give their money to pay for a education, and then dictates how the education will go, against what the parents want is outrageous.

That I dissagree when told how the money is spent is merely annoying, after the first fact.

kwais | September 25, 2005, 8:50pm | #

DB,
I didn't know about the sisters sleeping with their dad. That is a weird story. What is the moral of that one?

Also, the bible calls for the execution of gay men? Strangely enough, the Koran does also. The Koran mandates death by stoning. Is the bible specific about method of execution?

Well I guess it is not that weird about the similarities. I was told by a very Jewish friend of mine that the model of Islam was created and fed to Mohammed by his baby sitter, or aunt, who was a Christian.

I mean I am not saying that is true, just that it is one explanation. On the other hand maybe there is a good reason why God reiterated the need to kill gay men.

kwais | September 25, 2005, 8:58pm | #

Hak,
You have to at least consider the chance that Jesus, and to some extent Mohammed and Moses, knew stuff that most people didn't back then.

And that they had figured out stuff that even today we haven't figured out.

They did seem to pull of some impressive magic tricks. And there were a bunch of guys doing smoke and mirror type magic tricks, and Moses blew them all away.

Also,
with regard to your comments about Christians being the enemies of liberty. Remember Jefferson and his buddies who started this country?

Don't you think that Libertarianism itself might be a product of Christian thinking?

thoreau | September 25, 2005, 10:27pm | #

Also, with regard to your comments about Christians being the enemies of liberty. Remember Jefferson and his buddies who started this country?

kwais-

The religious convictions of the Founders is a complicated matter that I've discussed with a friend of mine who's writing his dissertation on American history (focusing on the era of the Founding). He's in Philadelphia right now, looking through a lot of old archives to study original documents. I once made the mistake of saying in front of him that the Founders were deists. He took me to the woodshed for making such a blanket statement:

1) First and foremost, the Founders were a large and diverse group of people with strong and varying opinions. You can't really ascribe a uniform religious belief to a large and diverse group of opinionated people.

2) Most of them were indeed at least nominally Christian, in that most (all?) were on a roster somewhere as registered members in various churches. Yet many of them also expressed opinions that could be construed as Deist or even downright atheist. Even more difficult, as thoughtful men but also skilled politicians who wrote a lot during their lifetimes, one can probably find all sorts of statements that are either contradictory or seem contradictory without context (for an example of the "flip flop effect" see: Kerry, John).

One can debate how significant it is that their names were on church membership rosters. My friend attributes considerable significance to it in many of those cases. Of course, as a good scholar, he's careful not to make broad statements that he can't support, but he certainly attributes significance to evidence of their religious involvement. But most of his research doesn't focus on the really big names, whose lives have already been the subject of countless dissertations. He's interested in other people around then and what they were up to, to get insight into the broader society that the big names existed in.

Now, I know that at least one person here could, if he wants to, probably make short work of my friend's work, or at least my synopsis of it. And it's quite possible that my friend hasn't read as many books and articles as some people here have read. But at some point a good scholar has to stop reading about what is already known and start delving into uncharted territory. And my friend has done a lot of that. He's analyzed all sorts of things that nobody has analyzed before. Recalling lots of facts is important, but finding new things is also important. And while a prodigious set of references to previous work is nice, analysis and logical deduction also has its place. Google can recall more facts than I will ever know. But I can find new facts and analyze them to form a picture.

dhex | September 25, 2005, 11:23pm | #

"On the other hand maybe there is a good reason why God reiterated the need to kill gay men."

population building.

it makes more sense for an isolated group, in that if you're surrounded, you need to make babies asap. you need women to breed soldiers and good upright men to impregnant those women, etc etc and so forth.

the gay gets in