how the catholic church turns off young people.

Wallet · Apr 18, 2012

Quote from babutime:

You're pro life? Well I don't see you rallying to adopt kids who were born because the mothers couldn't get an abortion and now have to be adopted away? So long as someone else takes care of them you're fine, correct? Or is that something Jesus would do?

And what about the mothers? The economic hardships she has to go through after she does have a baby is far worse on the kid AND the mother collectively. Who will you take care of them once they're born? You? I bet you wouldn't spend a dime of your tax dollars on social programs because you're so against a big government that wants to feed those women.

You and your illiterate crowd is only pro life till the kid is born, and once they're born you're unknown- nowhere to be find, except in front of Fox news jerking off to Bill O.

These same pro-life conservative nuts would be more than willing to go into someone else's country, attack them and kill children there.

Get a grip pal. Go read a book.

So I guess by your standards a persons right to life is a product of your classification and determination of their socio and economic condition...... that's euthanasia, jack.

It's a real simple question and all the high drama, women's this and that, quality of life blah blah blah, like you can read their future...

Boil it all down and answer this one question, with only a yes or no out of your pie-hole.........

Does a baby have the right to live?

PiggyBank · Apr 18, 2012

Quote from babutime:

First of all, there's no such thing as "evolutionary defect". no such thing. What does that mean? Evolution doesn't always happen for the "right" reasons. According to your argument, humans as a whole are a "evolutionary defect" of some sort because we are weaker compared to a plethora of other animals. A newborn cow has more chances of survival if left in the wild than a newborn human.

Second, what you think doesn't have any basis unless it's scientifically rooted. Scientific research suggests (and I said this in my previous argument too) no problems when kids are brought up in a homosexual parent household. Millions of homosexual couples all over Europe and millions more in the US and you sitting in America know all about the nature of kids brought up in homosexual households?

Well, since none of you are WILLING to look up any scientific research because you're in denial, here's some quick ones I found so you can read it [I doubt any of you will but here it is anyway]

[1] The American Psychological Association: Briefing a court
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdf

[2] Canadian Psychological Association
http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles...ex Couples Position Statement - October 2006 (1).pdf

[3] Australian version:
http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work. And no, you can't vote against it [like they did in California- disgustingly]. Till the 60s the US (especially the South) was overwhelmingly racist. Imagine the outcome if racial segregation was voted upon.

A true democracy dictates (and look it up in your constitution- it's there) that

The rights of the minorities can never be voted upon

You are one ignorant individual. there are no evolutionary defects huh, well what the fuck causes genetic defects? What could homosexuality be if it is not some form of defect? The answer doesn't bode well for homosexuals. If it isn't a defect then they are gay by choice. I don't know if you can read or not but where the fuck did I say anyhting about evolution being "right"? and what does it have to do with humans being weaker than other animals? Nothing.

CAN YOU REFUTE THAT IF ALL HUMANS WERE BORN GAY THAT WE WOULD NOT EXIST?

Also, you're right I would never read all of that 'research' because it is a waste of my time. I did go to the results section on pg 13 of the last link, and the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph completely discredits this garbage. Here is the first sentence "Some research shows homosexual families are in some respects better for children than heterosexual parents..." LOL Psychology, like economics is based in subjective (political) theory and not objective science.

And finally, you (unsurprisingly) lack knowledge of our Constitution and legal system. the Constitution does NOT mention marriage, and like anything else not mentioned, nor prohibited, it is up to the STATES to decide. Since you are writing as if you are not an American, what the fuck does it matter what you think about this issue?

stu · Apr 19, 2012

Quote from PiggyBank:

his analogy didn't fail. it doesn't matter if you consider their reasoning good, they attend an private institution which has been very open about their positions, if they don't agree thats fine, but to think that the church shouldn't be allowed to call a mandatory meeting because you, or the students, or a political party doesn't agree with their positions is ludicrous. Again they set their own agenda as they own and operate the private institution. this is not my opinion, it is fact.

The scary thing is that a seemingly increasing number of Americans who believe themselves socially liberal, are in fact, just as if not more authoritarian than social conservatives. You don't get to set the policies at a private institution no matter how much you disagree. I have nothing else to say about it.

p.s. i'm not catholic or religious at all, and no I don't want the children to turn out as hate mongering drones. but you and people like you don't understand or don't like the concept of freedom, to ban such a practice by the church at an institution that they own is a dangerous way of thinking. much more dangerous than what they did.

If you can't or won't understand someone else is deciding on behalf of the children, that they will go to a private catholic school, that they are supposed to be catholic, that they will attend a mandatory meeting to be preached at by the catholic church in ways that are discriminatory hateful and intolerant toward their own classmates and fellow human beings, then it's just as well you have nothing else to say about it.
Gladly the school children did. And they did so within the concept of free speech which apparently you think should be available to a church school but not to pupils.

It's not to do with others setting the policies of private institutions. It is about realizing at least some of those policies stink and are deplorable.

His analogy suggests if tolerance is invading the catholic church then he should get to see it invading other obnoxious organizations.

Bad analogy good idea.

nutmeg · Apr 19, 2012

.

"My friend said, 'You didn't just compare people to animals, did you?'" said Hannah.

-----------------------------

I noticed this quote: Then someone else on this thread said dolphins are homosexual.(I think monkeys too)

People get upset when comparing gays to animals then use animals to prove homosexuality.

Just trying to understand the point.

stu · Apr 19, 2012

Quote from nutmeg:
.
"My friend said, 'You didn't just compare people to animals, did you?'" said Hannah.

-----------------------------

I noticed this quote: Then someone else on this thread said dolphins are homosexual.(I think monkeys too)

People get upset when comparing gays to animals then use animals to prove homosexuality.

Just trying to understand the point.

"She called the comments "hurtful" and comparisons between gay love and bestiality upsetting.

..comparing the natural occurrence of homosexuality in all animals is same as comparing the natural occurrence of heterosexuality in all animals.
Comparing homosexuality to bestiality, in a school, in a mandatory meeting, under a religious banner, is crude, offensive, ignorant, and borders on abuse.

The same kind of thing that goes on in Madrasahs. So in its policies, this Private Catholic school might reasonably be compared to the taking of an Islamic approach to education.

nutmeg · Apr 19, 2012

Hannah siad this.

"My friend said, 'You didn't just compare people to animals, did you?'" said Hannah

I understand your point, Is hannah confused?

stu · Apr 19, 2012

Quote from nutmeg:

Hannah siad this.

"My friend said, 'You didn't just compare people to animals, did you?'" said Hannah

I understand your point, Is hannah confused?

I don't think it's Hannah who is confused.

"My friend said, 'You didn't just compare people to animals, did you?'" said Hannah.

So Hannah didn't say that anyway but nevertheless, "Comparing people to animals" is mostly used as a common figure of speech, an expression used to refer to something that it does not literally denote to suggest offense has been taken.

PiggyBank · Apr 19, 2012

Quote from stu:

If you can't or won't understand someone else is deciding on behalf of the children, that they will go to a private catholic school, that they are supposed to be catholic, that they will attend a mandatory meeting to be preached at by the catholic church in ways that are discriminatory hateful and intolerant toward their own classmates and fellow human beings, then it's just as well you have nothing else to say about it.
Gladly the school children did. And they did so within the concept of free speech which apparently you think should be available to a church school but not to pupils.

It's not to do with others setting the policies of private institutions. It is about realizing at least some of those policies stink and are deplorable.

His analogy suggests if tolerance is invading the catholic church then he should get to see it invading other obnoxious organizations.

Bad analogy good idea.

I can understand that the students may not be there by choice, but it is irrelevant to what I am saying. I don't recall writing anywhere that the students couldn't disagree or voice their opinions when asked, nor implying it. If they were to disrupt the meeting because they don't like what they are hearing, then yes, that is a problem. How many times in school do most people have to listen and do things that they don't want? what if a student threw a temper tantrum because he was being taught evolution because he was an evangelical? should he not have to listen, and could he just disrupt class (captive audience) without some kind of consequence? or is that only ok in this case because you agree with the students and don't like what the church had to say. In fact, the only reason that I chimed in at all is because of your first post...

...A mandatory assembly is not a meeting where people are taking part of their own free will. If the catholic church can do that, then so should PETA and the KKK, when they too can be resisted by school children obliged to attend...

You were clearly implying that the church shouldn't be able to call a meeting, like the one this article is based on, at their own institution. Obviously it is not the same as if students were forced to listen to PETA or the KKk, or the church in a state operated school. That is the cause of my disagreement, and I stand by it. if a student just can't handle the reality of the school that they attend, then they should leave, and yes they could do that in a number of ways if they decided to. What is the point of the article in the first place, if it isn't to persuade readers that the church is wrong and shouldn't be able to make it mandatory for students to attend meetings that they disagree with?

Also, his analogy was that you don't see groups of people that disagree with an organization attend their meetings or become members and shout them down. that is intolerant in and of itself.

jem · Apr 19, 2012

Quote from babutime:

You're pro life? Well I don't see you rallying to adopt kids who were born because the mothers couldn't get an abortion and now have to be adopted away? So long as someone else takes care of them you're fine, correct? Or is that something Jesus would do?

And what about the mothers? The economic hardships she has to go through after she does have a baby is far worse on the kid AND the mother collectively. Who will you take care of them once they're born? You? I bet you wouldn't spend a dime of your tax dollars on social programs because you're so against a big government that wants to feed those women.

You and your illiterate crowd is only pro life till the kid is born, and once they're born you're unknown- nowhere to be find, except in front of Fox news jerking off to Bill O.

These same pro-life conservative nuts would be more than willing to go into someone else's country, attack them and kill children there.

Get a grip pal. Go read a book.

More delusional liberal crap.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

And note I am pointing out how delusional it is to be a liberal make the claim of being big on human rights and support partial birth abortion and other abortions.

Think about the twisted logic. As a baby is being born you kill it and say you are pro human rights.

Its also delusional to be pro human rights and pro expansion of the govt and force people to pay insurance.

Its also delusion to think it is pro human rights to tell churches they have to provide abortifacients.

Can the right be hypocritical as well... sure but at lease we drum out polticians who are dirtballs. We don't hold them up as icons.

stu · Apr 19, 2012

Quote from PiggyBank:
I can understand that the students may not be there by choice, but it is irrelevant to what I am saying.

Well yes, it may well be irrelevant to what you are saying, but it isn't irrelevant to what I am saying.

As far as I am aware, KKK cannot force or oblige anyone to attend a meeting to hear their hateful bigoted preaching. Apparently the catholic church thought in De Salle school they could mandate people. So the -choice- thing is not at all irrelevant.

Quote from PiggyBank:

I don't recall writing anywhere that the students couldn't disagree or voice their opinions when asked, nor implying it If they were to disrupt the meeting because they don't like what they are hearing, then yes, that is a problem. How many times in school do most people have to listen and do things that they don't want? what if a student threw a temper tantrum because he was being taught evolution because he was an evangelical? should he not have to listen, and could he just disrupt class (captive audience) without some kind of consequence? or is that only ok in this case because you agree with the students and don't like what the church had to say. In fact, the only reason that I chimed in at all is because of your first post...

They were asked. The OP says there was measured knowledgeable objection to the remarks of representatives from an archdiocese. The offensive speech seems to have been one way - in the shape of bigoted opinion from a church, which was personal, and upset those directly affected by its hurtful contents.

The OP indicates the type of offensive preaching at the students in the school. You might expect to hear such stuff in a KKK meeting but people attend those by choice.

I don't recall anywhere saying the school should not be able to call mandatory meetings. I do recall implying they apparently use them to verbally in this case, insult and abuse children and their classmates and that it should not be allowed in a school, especially by those who are supposed to be fulfilling a role as teachers.

When being taught evolution, you don't get to personally insult students by calling them sociologically unstable and comparing them with bestiality.
If any school did that, private, catholic or not, I would have thought and hope you'd expect them to object and refuse it if nothing was done to stop it.

Making students attend a one off meeting in order to personally assault them with offensive remarks in the name of religion, is not what's expected in class or anywhere at all, other than at KKK or an islamic school.

There is nothing in the OP about students shouting anyone down. It mentions polite and knowledgeable rebuke. Feeling angry is not the same thing.
Students were obviously upset by some vile sounding remarks made by the church and objected, as was their right so to do, even if there had not been any question/answer, which apparently there was.

The impression you give is that private school has an absolute right over any situation, even when it is insulting offending or harming those in its care. Just because it is private. Just because it is catholic. Just because some parents want it that way.