[RAzaRazor]

Christian School Expels Child of Lesbians
By Seema Mehta, Times Staff Writer

A Christian school in Ontario expelled a student Thursday because her parents are lesbians, according to a letter from the school's superintendent.

Freshman Shay Clark, 14, was told to leave Ontario Christian High School after administrators learned of her parents' relationship this week.

"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."

The letter included two checks refunding $3,415, Shay's tuition for half the school year and an art fee. Attempts to reach Stob were unsuccessful.

Clark and her partner, Mitzi Gray, have been together for 22 years, and have three daughters; the others are ages 9 and 19. Clark and Gray said school officials learned of their relationship after Shay and another cheerleader were reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game Sept. 16.

After Clark was told that her daughter could no longer attend the school, the mother was ordered to remove Shay from cheerleading practice, collect her daughter's belongings and leave the property. Shay and her parents say they will not appeal the school's ruling. Shay will attend public school next week.



Note: This is from the LA Times, and it's talking about Ontario, California. NOT Canada.

[Cold Warrior]

Meh.
Sucks for the family. But...
A private school is not obligated to educate those that don't conform to their policies. That's why they're private.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Meh.
Sucks for the family. But...
A private school is not obligated to educate those that don't conform to their policies. That's why they're private.

Exactly. The school had every right to do what it did and I fully support their right to commit such acts. Whether it was the decent thing to do is another matter altogether. This couple needs to find a private school that is accepting of the fact they are a lesbian couple.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by RAzaRazor

Clark and Gray said school officials learned of their relationship after Shay and another cheerleader were reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game Sept. 16.

Aren't cheerleaders supposed to talk to the crowd during a football game? You know, the "give me an 'A'" type of thing. Why would they be reprimanded for it?

[hyteckit]

What if they were against interracial couples?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What if they were against interracial couples?

Private organizations have a right to establish who their members are and dismiss members if they do not meet the criteria for membership. Having said that, there is a tremenous amount of legal basis for not permitting exclusion from private groups on the basis of race. Unfortunately, we don't have that same level of legal protection for same-sex couples as of yet.

But in the end, I would support their right to dismiss children of an interracial couple. It is a private school and the relationship between a private school and its students is much more contractual than that between a public school and its students. By law, public schools are required to educate ALL students. As far as I know, the same laws don't apply to private schools.

Granted, the Federal government could withold funds from a school that openly practiced discrimination based on race or marital/gender status of the parents. And if that were the case then the school would have to decide to either change its policies or forgo Federal funding.

But, if you were a parent would you really want your kids to to attend a school where they are so openly unwanted? I certainly would not.

[loki74]

It is their decision and right to do this, although I think it may be a little far-reaching. I think that getting rid of the kid for being lesbian herself would be more reasonable. But trying to control the parents? I mean, I think that as long as those specific traits were not reflected in the student, and the parent wasn't consistently on campus for extended periods of time, it would be fine... cause I mean, the girl herself hasn't done anything wrong; she can't help if her mom is lesbian, but all the same she is the one who is ultimately punished... oh well.

To be honest, actually, I'm perfectly fine with this not being entirely reasonable. I read a while back of a girl getting expelled for defining a lesbian as "a girl who kisses another girl." A curde, basic definition, perhaps, but by no means discriminatory. Indeed, being discriminatory was what they expelled her for, IIRC. I think that move was equally unreasonable.

At my HS, you can get expelled for cohabitating, abortion, etc, although I haven't heard anything about homosexuality as of yet.

[OreoCookie]

I tend to agree to some degree. If the school is entirely funded privately, they should have the right to `do whatever they want'. But if they do receive funding from the state, the situation is not as clear anymore. The government could make their funding dependent on school policies. So to pick up an example made earlier, if the school were to discriminate against a black/mixed family, they could loose public funding and IMHO they should.

In the interest of the state, schools have to fulfill certain requirements, e. g. contents of the courses, topics to be covered, even if it's just for the sake of having a comparable degree after completing the full program.

So based on that, I think the state could do something about that. People tend to be very touchy when it comes to money

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Why the hell would they put them in a Christian school anyway?

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO

Why the hell would they put them in a Christian school anyway?

Hmm.. let me guess..

They're Christian?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Hmm.. let me guess..

They're Christian?

I fail to see how a Lesbian-couple could possibly be conceived as 'Christian'.

[Busemann]

Many would say sexual orientation has nothing to do with religion

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by undotwa

I fail to see how a Lesbian-couple could possibly be conceived as 'Christian'.

Maybe it's because they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, who wasn't into throwing stones, unlike some here.

Many who profess to be Christian are going to be very surprised when their judgement time comes.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Hmm.. let me guess..

They're Christian?

You can be part of a religion when it teaches discrimination and hate towards you?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO

You can be part of a religion when it teaches discrimination and hate towards you?

Yes. Happens all the time.

Like when members of your religion think nothing of blowing you and/or your family into a million peices with car and suicide bombs. Or perhaps burn crosses on your yard, string you up from the nearest tree, or blow up your church or mosque.

It's not the religion itself, it's the actions of people that belong to it.

[BRussell]

It's pretty sad when the answer to razarazor's post is "it's legal." I don't think the original post ever said anything about the legality of the school's actions, so why is that relevant at all, except to excuse this immoral act on the part of the school?

[Kerrigan]

The last thing you want to piss off is a brigade of angy bearded lesbians. This school should be more careful.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

The last thing you want to piss off is a brigade of angy bearded lesbians. This school should be more careful.

Nice stereotyping!

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's pretty sad when the answer to razarazor's post is "it's legal." I don't think the original post ever said anything about the legality of the school's actions, so why is that relevant at all, except to excuse this immoral act on the part of the school?

i dunno. given that it *is* a private school i would assume that it's rules of admission were presented *before* the couple paid and enrolled their child. while it may not be a "morality" you agree with, i doubt seriously they hid it from the parents.

*if* they were aware of the admissions criteria (which my understanding is this is normally a contract), it is the parents who should be ashamed not the school.

**edit**: ashamed specifically of what they did here, not their sexual preference.

be well.

laeth

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's pretty sad when the answer to razarazor's post is "it's legal." I don't think the original post ever said anything about the legality of the school's actions, so why is that relevant at all, except to excuse this immoral act on the part of the school?

Its relevance is in an attempt to explain WHY this action was taken, or more directly, could be taken.

Your comment seems to be of the opinion that the only response to this act is moral outrage. That type of response, while appropriate, does not provide a basis for anything productive; It is all emotion. Whereas an understanding of why something happens can be the basis for ameliorative action for the initial act that caused the outrage.

And perhaps the OP has not violated rule #8 and posted his opinions on the matter--an emoticon does NOT count--we could have a better basis to discuss this issue. As it stands now we have an exceprt from a news article with an emoticon and a clarification of geographical context. We have no idea what the OP thinks about what he posted. So, that leaves the debate open to respondents to comment on it in whatever fashion they see fit. You put forth moral outrage with your reply. I put forth a possible reason for why this could be done.

Yes, it was a terrible thing for the school to do but moral righteousness--you seemed more upset about reposes to the original post than the content ofthe original post--doesn't lead to reasoned debate; It usually ends debate.

[Kerrigan]

As it stands now Yes, it was a terrible thing for the school(which my understanding is this is normally a contract) to do but moramore upset about reposes to thewas taken, or more directly, could be taken. bla bla bla rules of admission were presented *before* me and/or your family into a million peices


Exactly. The school had every right to do what it did and I fully support their right to commit such acts. Whether it was the decent thing to do is parents? I mean, I think that as long as those specific traits were not reflected in the student, and the parent wasn't removed, Shay from cheerleading practice, collect consistently on campus for extended is another matter not violated rule #8 altogether. This couple needs to find a private interest of the state.

rule #12: this thread is lame and needs to be locked

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

As it stands now Yes, it was a terrible thing for the school(which my understanding is this is normally a contract) to do but moramore upset about reposes to thewas taken, or more directly, could be taken. bla bla bla rules of admission were presented *before* me and/or your family into a million peices

still dunno 'bout that. i personally *do not* see it as a terrible thing for the school to do if an acknowledgement of these specific admissions criteria were known (or were presented to be known) before the parents enrolled their daughter. if the parents failed to fully read the admissions criteria the fault is their own.

when i managed businesses i expected those that entered into contracts with me to do so in good faith (as i entered them in good faith). being found doing otherwise normally voids the contract.

by the limited information here - and given the parents apparently aren't pursuing the matter legally - it seems the parents may have acted in bad faith. for the sake of other contract holders with the school i think expelling the student (and the full refund after the term has started is certainly a generous gesture) and cancelling the contract is exactly the right thing to do. it maintains good faith between the school and the families that are reciprocating the same good faith.

be well.

laeth

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by isao bered

i dunno. given that it *is* a private school i would assume that it's rules of admission were presented *before* the couple paid and enrolled their child. while it may not be a "morality" you agree with, i doubt seriously they hid it from the parents.

Really? You think the school had a "no lesbian parents or you're out" rule explicitly written down somewhere? I don't have any evidence either way, but I strongly doubt that.

[edit] Well I guess I was wrong - in the original post, the administrator claims that it was written down. Huh. Interestingly enough, the passage he cites says that at least one parent can't be a homosexual. So one is OK, but two cooks spoil the broth?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Its relevance is in an attempt to explain WHY this action was taken, or more directly, could be taken.

Not why it was done, but only how it could legally be done. And yet, no one raised the question of legality. It's a red herring.

The reason I bring it up is that I consider this to be one of the central flaws in social and political reasoning, at least in the US. Perhaps you didn't mean it in this way when you brought it up, but one constantly hears of people making the argument that because it's legal, it's right. "It's my First Amendment right and therefore you can't criticize me." The fact that our system is based on restraint of government action demands that people criticize obnoxious private behavior. The fact that it's legal (which, again, no one ever questioned) is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it's right.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Really? You think the school had a "no lesbian parents or you're out" rule explicitly written down somewhere? I don't have any evidence either way, but I strongly doubt that.

apparently they do. from the article in the first post of the thread:

"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."

from information imparted to me over the years by acquaintances i've had whose children were enrolled in private church schools, such "morality" policies are common and known. for instance, i was informed that it is not uncommon for catholic schools to allow protestant students, but require them to attend daily mass regardless of the family religious affiliation. they welcome the parents to enroll their children elsewhere if they take offense to that policy.

be well.

laeth

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by isao bered

apparently they do. from the article in the first post of the thread:



from information imparted to me over the years by acquaintances i've had whose children were enrolled in private church schools, such "morality" policies are common and known. for instance, i was informed that it is not uncommon for catholic schools to allow protestant students, but require them to attend daily mass regardless of the family religious affiliation. they welcome the parents to enroll their children elsewhere if they take offense to that policy.

be well.

laeth

Yeah I saw that after I posted, and edited my post. I looked on the admissions section of their website and it didn't say anything about that. I'd be interested in seeing the specific section of their policies that refers to gay parents - it still seems very surprising to me that it would get that specific. I wonder if it really did explicitly say that, or if that was just the interpretation by this administrator. The quote is a little bit ambiguous. Do they list all the other conditions that would exclude students? Or do they just single out gays?

More generally, it's pretty sad that this is what some Christians have come to. It's so fundamentally anti-Christian.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by isao bered

still dunno 'bout that. i personally *do not* see it as a terrible thing for the school to do if an acknowledgement of these specific admissions criteria were known (or were presented to be known) before the parents enrolled their daughter. if the parents failed to fully read the admissions criteria the fault is their own.

You do realise that my post was just a bunch of other posts from this thread randomly cut and past together, right?

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

You do realise that my post was just a bunch of other posts from this thread randomly cut and past together, right?

uhm. no, i did not. :-)

it did seem a little rambling for you, but i just figured it's the weekend and you may not be fully sober. ;-)

be well.

laeth

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by isao bered

i dunno. given that it *is* a private school i would assume that it's rules of admission were presented *before* the couple paid and enrolled their child. while it may not be a "morality" you agree with, i doubt seriously they hid it from the parents.

*if* they were aware of the admissions criteria (which my understanding is this is normally a contract), it is the parents who should be ashamed not the school.

**edit**: ashamed specifically of what they did here, not their sexual preference.

be well.

laeth

If the school received public funding, that funding can make it mandatory for the school to fulfill certain requirements. In this way, certain admission criteria -- while legal -- could cause the school to loose public funds.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'd be interested in seeing the specific section of their policies that refers to gay parents - it still seems very surprising to me that it would get that specific. I wonder if it really did explicitly say that, or if that was just the interpretation by this administrator.

from their mission statement:

Mission Responsibility
As PARENTS AND A BROADER CHRISITAN COMMUNITY, we will...
Support the home and church in teaching Biblical Values

like you say, that is very broad. however, i did see from the admissions area that prior to a child being admitted that there is a "family interview" (whatever that consists of). i can only *assume* that only ^one^ parent was present and *possibly* portrayed herself as a single mother. if so, this is where my "good faith" comments come in - if you are going to be deceptive at the start don't expect the agreement to stand when the truth comes to light. it is unfortunate for the child, but at age 14 she may well have been an accomplice to the situation at the guidance of her parents - surely she knew.

even still, i don't know that it's fair to denigrate the school over this. it seems likely the admission never would have happened if they were aware of the family structure in the first place. (and, no, i am not even going to get into who is "morally" right or wrong concerning an admissions bias against homosexuals - and apparently unwed parental cohabitation and other sexual reprehension to be determined at a later date.)

be well.

laeth

^edit^

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

If the school received public funding, that funding can make it mandatory for the school to fulfill certain requirements. In this way, certain admission criteria -- while legal -- could cause the school to loose public funds.

certainly it could. in this case, however (surfing their site), it *appears* their funding comes via donations and tuition/fees.

be well.

laeth

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by isao bered

certainly it could. in this case, however (surfing their site), it *appears* their funding comes via donations and tuition/fees.

be well.

laeth

I just added this as a possibility. I didn't look into the matter, but I wanted to add this for people who say: oh, since it's a public school, `they can do whatever they want.' If the school couldn't afford to loose the extra money, they probably would play along.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I just added this as a possibility. I didn't look into the matter, but I wanted to add this for people who say: oh, since it's a public school, `they can do whatever they want.' If the school couldn't afford to loose the extra money, they probably would play along.

eh... it wouldn't surprise me if they had a waiting list. but actually, from an economics standpoint it's quite possible they couldn't have afforded **not** to expel the student...

be well.

laeth

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by isao bered

(and, no, i am not even going to get into who is "morally" right or wrong concerning an admissions bias against homosexuals - and apparently unwed parental cohabitation and other sexual reprehension to be determined at a later date.)

But that's really the issue. This is what I was getting at with dcmacdaddy - I don't understand why people are unwilling to criticize this. If you agree with it, OK; I think you're wrong, but a lot of people apparently feel the same way. If you disagree with it, why not say so? Is it because it's a religious-based bigotry? I don't think that changes a thing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But that's really the issue. This is what I was getting at with dcmacdaddy - I don't understand why people are unwilling to criticize this. If you agree with it, OK; I think you're wrong, but a lot of people apparently feel the same way. If you disagree with it, why not say so? Is it because it's a religious-based bigotry? I don't think that changes a thing.

I don't agree with it. I never agreed with it. But my disagreement with it on moral grounds does not in any way prevent me from acknowleding that the school is within its legal right to do so.

You still can't seem to separate legal rights from moral rights, can you? Do you want moral rights enshrined into law? And if so, whose morality? We've got a whole freakin' bunch of religious f*ck-wits in this country-- from all sorts of religious persuasions--who want to enshrine religious morals into secular law, do you want that? Do you want the type of people who run this school to enshrine their sense of morality into law? NO?!? Then STFU and realize morals come from people, not from the law! And this school has different morals than you. Get over it!

In this comment from my second post here ("Unfortunately, we don't have that same level of legal protection for same-sex couples as of yet.") I acknowledge that we don't have sufficient legal basis to change this school's practices. But at the same time, if we as a society force all our secular morals on religious institutions, like religious schools, then we have become no better than those we seek to criticize.

There is NO doubt what the school did was wrong but their sense of religious morality differs from our (yours and mine) sense of secular morality. But, the people who send their kids to this school, they want their kids to grow up believing homosexuality is wrong, is an aberration. So, while we could do away with schools, even private religious ones, putting forth that message about the wrongness of homosexuality, we could not change the fundamental attitudes of the parents who send their kids there.

But why are you so worked up over this one example? There are private organizations all over this country practicing discrimination of one form or another. Why aren't your frothing at the mouth over them?

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But that's really the issue. This is what I was getting at with dcmacdaddy - I don't understand why people are unwilling to criticize this. If you agree with it, OK; I think you're wrong, but a lot of people apparently feel the same way. If you disagree with it, why not say so? Is it because it's a religious-based bigotry? I don't think that changes a thing.

the reason i'm not getting into that is because one's opinion on the morality or immorality of homosexuality is not really the issue here. the issue is whether or not a private institution can maintain a corporate morality independant of an individual member or potential member. my opinion on that is that they most certainly can. what's to criticize? the two parties apparently just believe differently.

be well.

laeth

[aks]

It is another step closer to being a Christian madrassa. We take for granted that Christian values could not possibly lead to unthinkable acts, yet look back at what has been done "in the name of God". The changes take place in small increments without attention, like a frog being slowly boiled, until at some point the result does not resemble the start. This event may be nothing but a petty someone at the school finding a technical means to expel a student they did not like. It is happening at a time where fundamentalist moods are glowing enough to ignite another Charles Coughlin. Others might become emboldened.

What gutter minds the school administrators must have to imagine what objectionable acts the parents were engaging in to justify expulsion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell

But that's really the issue. This is what I was getting at with dcmacdaddy - I don't understand why people are unwilling to criticize this. If you agree with it, OK; I think you're wrong, but a lot of people apparently feel the same way. If you disagree with it, why not say so? Is it because it's a religious-based bigotry? I don't think that changes a thing.

This is a school based around a particular belief system, which includes the idea that homosexuality is wrong and should not be accepted. Like many religions' beliefs, I disagree with this idea, but I think people should be allowed to believe it if they want. I ask these people not to dictate their perverted sense of morality to me, and I'll afford them the same courtesy.

I think it's unfortunate that there probably aren't many schools representing the reasonable Christians of the world, though. (Seriously, why doesn't this place have a rule forbidding parents who are in prison for stealing? They're sinners too.)

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Many would say sexual orientation has nothing to do with religion

It doesn't.

The notion that homosexuals cannot be Christians is centered around a theology which relies on mans good works to be saved. If homosexuality can keep a person from being saved, then every other sin known to man will also keep one from being saved.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by greenamp

It doesn't.

The notion that homosexuals cannot be Christians is centered around a theology which relies on mans good works to be saved. If homosexuality can keep a person from being saved, then every other sin known to man will also keep one from being saved.

'Faith without good works is dead'.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by undotwa

'Faith without good works is dead'.

So the moment you stop doing "good works," or the moment you do something opposite of good works, your faith is dead and gone?

What do you do then?

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by greenamp

So the moment you stop doing "good works," or the moment you do something opposite of good works, your faith is dead and gone?

What do you do then?

From where do you contrive that? (You realise this is a quote from scripture, right?)

We are all sinners, that is true. What the statement is saying however not that when we commit sin we are automatically excluded from God's Kingdom (since God is ever merciful) but that we must manifest our faith in the works we do. For if we don't do this, we essentially are demonstrating a lack of faith. Faith isn't merely a statement 'I believe in Jesus' but a way of life. You must live your faith, in your work, in prayer and in your day to day relationships! Otherwise, our faith is dead.

Ultimately, we must make Jesus Christ our role model and follow his teachings. Of course we'll never be perfect, but we must strive for this ideal to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Otherwise, our faith is dead.

[RAzaRazor]

This is interesting. I posted this thread without any commentary (other than the ) to see what direction it would take. I don't think there is really any question that the school was within it's rights, the question is was it the right thing to do?

The main point of this thread in my mind? The school is punishing the child because her parents are lesbians. The girl isn't a lesbian, she is acting within the guidelines of the school policies. Yet they kick her out.

It seems like the "Christian" thing to do would to allow the girl to stay in school. Furthermore, it seems like the typical "Christian" behavior in this case would be for the school to teach the girl about the evil ways of her parents. The fact that they didn't try and alienate the girl from her parents makes this a better group of people in my mind. Still the fact remains they kicked out a child because of her parents. What does that teach the child about their belief system? What does that say to the other kids who go to that school? Nothing Good.

[greenamp]

Originally Posted by undotwa

From where do you contrive that? (You realise this is a quote from scripture, right?)

We are all sinners, that is true. What the statement is saying however not that when we commit sin we are automatically excluded from God's Kingdom (since God is ever merciful) but that we must manifest our faith in the works we do. For if we don't do this, we essentially are demonstrating a lack of faith. Faith isn't merely a statement 'I believe in Jesus' but a way of life. You must live your faith, in your work, in prayer and in your day to day relationships! Otherwise, our faith is dead.

Ultimately, we must make Jesus Christ our role model and follow his teachings. Of course we'll never be perfect, but we must strive for this ideal to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. Otherwise, our faith is dead.

Yes I realize the quote is from the bible. It is quoted out of context probably more than any other piece of scripture.

What you are saying essentially is that man must earn his salvation through proper living, or rather, after he has received salvation he must be on his toes about doing "good works" or else he might wake up one day to have his salvation be all but gone.

James' usage of the word "faith" is entirely different than the way it's used most often in the new testament. He is not referring to the actual act of being saved, but rather he is offering a guideline for Christian living. He is not saying " unless you do this you're damned, " but rather "this is what you should do as a Christian." The two meanings are entirely different.

And yes, faith is in fact the simple act of saying "I believe in Jesus, and I believe he died for my sins." But you must say it from your heart, from the seat of your being, and truly mean it. There is nothing else you have to do. There is nothing else you need to do.

Now getting back to the root of my original argument, can homosexuals be christians? Of course they can! Anyone who preaches differently is preaching a religion based on works, and if works are required for salvation then why did jesus die on the cross? The act of his sacrifice signifies that nothing else could have been done to achieve the end means.

The question "should christians live in homosexuality" is an entirely different discussion and is more a personal matter between the individual and god.

The christian school mentioned in this thread had every right under law to do what they did. But they have personified everything that is wrong with mainstream christianity, and proved that the mainstream christian movement has become all but irrelevant in too many situations.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAzaRazor

Still the fact remains they kicked out a child because of her parents. What does that teach the child about their belief system? What does that say to the other kids who go to that school? Nothing Good.

That tells the girl, and the other students in the school, exactly where the school stands (for the girl) and where they should stand (for the other students) on the issue of homosexuality. What the school is saying is that they don't aprove of or agree with the homosexual way of life--be it a choice or intrinsic--and the school wants the other students who remain to internalize this message.

That's the whole point; They are reinforcing their religious beliefs by this action. The school has to do this. To not do this act would be in contravention to their own stated religious beliefs. Besides, the other kids who go to that school probably already get the same message about homosexuality (i.e.: it is wrong, aberrant, abnormal, etc.) from their parents at home. Parents send their kids to this kind of school because they want certain religious ideas inculcated in their children. This idea--that homosexuality is wrong--is just one of those many ideas.

[Monique]

Of course the school is immoral and the parents were right to enroll their daughter into a more moral descent school that is open minded and mean it when they say love your neighbour instead of I will love my neighbour only if he or she agree with me.

[isao bered]

heh. i guess i'm the only one here who's bigger concern is that the parent(s) may have misrepresented themselves from the beginning to get the child into the school. if that is in fact the case what does it speak to the parents' convictions in the whole matter?

be well.

laeth

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by isao bered

heh. i guess i'm the only one here who's bigger concern is that the parent(s) may have misrepresented themselves from the beginning to get the child into the school. if that is in fact the case what does it speak to the parents' convictions in the whole matter?

be well.

laeth

Good, but overlooked, point.

I hadn't thought about it in this way but you raise a good point. The parents, in probably mis-representing themselves to the school, are setting a bad example for their daughter as well. It sends a message to be secretive and deceptive about one's true identity (Whatever happened to "Out and Proud"?) as well as sending the message that secrecy and deception are okay if it is a means to an end.

Looks like there are lots of losers here, the school, the parents, AND the daughter (on several levels).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by isao bered

heh. i guess i'm the only one here who's bigger concern is that the parent(s) may have misrepresented themselves from the beginning to get the child into the school. if that is in fact the case what does it speak to the parents' convictions in the whole matter?

If that is the case, yes. We don't have any real proof that it is. It may simply have been an honest misunderstanding.

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If that is the case, yes. We don't have any real proof that it is. It may simply have been an honest misunderstanding.

no proof, i know. but the school's webpage says a "family interview" is part of the admissions process. i just don't see the school knowingly entering the situation, so i am doubting that both parents were present...

be well.

laeth