| Archived - Ethics & Morality Archived threads from Ethics & Morality |
30th May 2005, 09:29 PM
|  | Veteran / Tuebor
     
 | | Join Date: 9th February 2005 Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 12,480
Blessings: 12,373 My Mood 
Reps: 8,007,909,598 (power: 8,007,930) | | Originally Posted by Jerusha_Girl Yes, I would feel upset if he was thrown out of a school for not being Catholic, if the school accepts non-Catholic students. Most Catholic schools around here allow kids of all faiths to come to the school and to throw a kid out of the school for not being Catholic is not fair to the child, especially if many of his classmates aren't Catholic. The school more than likely knows the religious affiliation of the child and they still allowed him, so obviously the school didn't have a problem. If the school has decided to accept children of all faiths, the judge can't decide to pick and choose what faiths under that "all faiths welcome" heading are ACTUALLY welcomed.
I don't know why the school wasn't the verdict and I see nothing that states that he could rule as such or that it wasn't an option given to the parents... as I have said before.
Regardless, the school wasn't the issue, since the judge didn't forbid the parents from taking the kid to the Catholic School, he forbid them from practicing Wicca in front of or with their child. If the judge were truely concerned about "mixed messages" of being one faith and going to a different faith's school, then he would have told the kid to not go to that school. Not, for all intents and purposes, have his familiy renounce their faith. The order says that he forbids the parents from introducing their child to "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals." That is dramatically different from "the child cannot continue to attend his school because his beliefs differ from that of the schools."
There is a difference between 'parents renouncing their faith' and teaching their beliefs (whatever they may be) for a period of time.
Secondly, having a good familiarity with several different beliefs and religions isn't a bad thing at all, and I have no idea why you'd think that knowing a lot about more than one religion could lead to severe repercussions. The child will probably be more tolerant and understanding of those two respective faiths, having grown up in a situation where all religions are honored. I'd suspect any "repercussions" that would happen would be no worse than people who attended Catholic schools and who were Catholic at the time, who now say that the experience led them AWAY from being Catholic. I've met some extremely bitter former Catholics with Catholic School educations. Heck, I'm marrying one of those former Catholics and my father is one of those former Catholics too. There are bitter and confused people of all faiths from all backgrounds. You can't prevent that anymore than you can prevent the sun from rising tomorrow morning.
Children are different and different people handle different situations well or worse. Your picture that is painted as the non-mainstream being harmless or incapable of being conflicting is lost when I know of Wiccan elders that have told me flat out that Christianity does harm in simply being preached. So given that one religion can say that Christianity is 'doing harm' and Christian belief states that there is only "One Way" to God, that simple scenario of basics can set up conflict right there. A child brought up in a turmoil of adults telling him/her opposing 'this is true' only increases moral relativism. Its not too far a step from there to justify whatever deviant behavior the child wishes to do.
__________________
If the grass seems to always look greener on the other side of the fence, it is probably a good sign to start watering and fertilizing your own.
Christian stewardship and contentment - the cure for Affluenza. |
30th May 2005, 09:48 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 31st March 2005
Posts: 2,369
Blessings: 111,138
Reps: 9,440 (power: 20) | | Originally Posted by ChristianCenturion I don't know why the school wasn't the verdict and I see nothing that states that he could rule as such or that it wasn't an option given to the parents... as I have said before.There is a difference between 'parents renouncing their faith' and teaching their beliefs (whatever they may be) for a period of time.
Is there? Then why do so many christians tell me that a central - perhaps defining - part of their faith is evangelising, particularly to their children? Originally Posted by ChristianCenturion A child brought up in a turmoil of adults telling him/her opposing 'this is true' only increases moral relativism. Its not too far a step from there to justify whatever deviant behavior the child wishes to do.
Actually, it's a HUGE step. There is no evidence that moral relativists act in ways that are morally worse than moral absolutists. For example, throughout the western world, theists are disproportionately highly represented in jail populations. The idea that moral relativism in practice leads to people who do whatever they want is simply false. |
30th May 2005, 10:07 PM
|  | The cake is a lie.
32 
| | Join Date: 11th May 2004 Location: San Diego
Posts: 4,547
Blessings: 110,866
Reps: 27,572 (power: 41) | | Originally Posted by ChristianCenturion I A child brought up in a turmoil of adults telling him/her opposing 'this is true' only increases moral relativism. Its not too far a step from there to justify whatever deviant behavior the child wishes to do.
Please provide evidence for such a claim.
As a moral realitivist I have gone to jail a grand total of zero times, have not even a traffic ticket, and am know for being a bit prudish.
Of course the term "deviant" is subject to abuse as well.
__________________ Look at me still talking when there's science to do! |
31st May 2005, 12:50 AM
| | Veteran / Tuebor
| | Join Date: 9th February 2005 Location: In front of a computer
Posts: 12,480
Blessings: 12,373 My Mood
Reps: 8,007,909,598 (power: 8,007,930) | | Originally Posted by Jetgirl Please provide evidence for such a claim.
As a moral realitivist I have gone to jail a grand total of zero times, have not even a traffic ticket, and am know for being a bit prudish.
Of course the term "deviant" is subject to abuse as well. http://www.behavior.org/journals_BP/...ttschaefer.pdf http://christian-parenting.learninginfo.org/chap08.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...275826-0325658 http://www.catholicsocialscientists....%20article.pdf
__________________
If the grass seems to always look greener on the other side of the fence, it is probably a good sign to start watering and fertilizing your own.
Christian stewardship and contentment - the cure for Affluenza. |
31st May 2005, 01:46 AM
| | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 31st March 2005
Posts: 2,369
Blessings: 111,138
Reps: 9,440 (power: 20) | | Originally Posted by ChristianCenturion
Well, I actually read ONE of the above references, in its entirety. That's ten minutes of my life I won't get back. The second reference from the top isn't about moral relativism at all; it's merely a rant against any and every moral belief that doesn't come from a Christian source. |
31st May 2005, 02:10 AM
| | June Carter, pray for us!
53 
| | Join Date: 16th May 2005
Posts: 2,346
Blessings: 105,016
Reps: 3,571 (power: 14) | | Originally Posted by talitha Regarding the legality, I said that it was unconstitutional. I do not necessarily agree with the law of the land. If I were in the judge's position, I would be likely to render a similar decision - which is why I am unlikely to be appointed as a judge.
Oh, yeah. That's why.
__________________
"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect... Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices."
- Jiddu Krishnamurti |
31st May 2005, 02:22 AM
|  | Regular Member
28
| | Join Date: 14th October 2004
Posts: 143
Blessings: 110,414
Reps: 237 (power: 0) | | | Ok boys and girls, welcome to political science 101 *takes chalk out and writes "state" on one end of the board, and "church" on the other, with a huge line drawn in the middle* any questions? It's right there in the Constitution. Now that we have that covered...
Once again, I find myself shocked and honestly frightened when I see fellow, *ahem* "Christians" supporting this kind of decision. Don't forget that Christ told us to "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and obey what laws we must in what country we are born in. It is our duty to the state and to God in our country to understand that the Church cannot and should not be part of Government. Countless Americans have fought, killed, died, and lost everything they had so that we can be free to practice religion as we see fit, and anyone who supports this decision obviously forgets their courage and their sacrifice. |
31st May 2005, 06:39 AM
| | Contributor
61
| | Join Date: 5th June 2004 Location: Here
Posts: 9,437
Blessings: 75,273
Reps: 20,944,042,277,765,704 (power: 20,944,042,277,784) | | Originally Posted by wandering_paladin Ok boys and girls, welcome to political science 101 *takes chalk out and writes "state" on one end of the board, and "church" on the other, with a huge line drawn in the middle* any questions? It's right there in the Constitution. Now that we have that covered...
Once again, I find myself shocked and honestly frightened when I see fellow, *ahem* "Christians" supporting this kind of decision. Don't forget that Christ told us to "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and obey what laws we must in what country we are born in. It is our duty to the state and to God in our country to understand that the Church cannot and should not be part of Government. Countless Americans have fought, killed, died, and lost everything they had so that we can be free to practice religion as we see fit, and anyone who supports this decision obviously forgets their courage and their sacrifice.
Weeellllll....... while we quite agree on the conclusion, how we get there is a bit different.
The constitution makes no mention whatsoever concerning the seperation of church and state. None. The phrase has been used by people involved in the foundations of our government who were seeking to protect the state from the church (Jefferson) and by people seeking to protect the church from the state (Roger Williams) but has not been used in the US Constitution.
The Constitution does prohibit the government from forming or selecting a religion (the establishment clause) and ensure that citizens will have the right to practice their religion (free exercise clause).
This case would fall under the free exercise of religion, and this judge is telling a family that they may not freely exercise their religion. Once again, the majority of Christians (or so it would seem, on this site) are on the wrong side of the issue! If this judge's ruling stands, it means that any judge in a family court situation could deny any family the right to take their kid to Sunday school and church and prohibit the parents from reading the Bible to their children. This judge could just as easily have ruled that the child must be removed from the Catholic schools to avoid confusion. Would that be acceptable?
Christians don't seem to understand that protecting the religious freedom rights of "minority" religions also protects the rights of Christians. |
31st May 2005, 06:40 AM
|  | Senior Member
63 
| | Join Date: 22nd April 2005 Location: San Antonio
Posts: 921
Blessings: 111,023
Reps: 2,679 (power: 11) | | | Religion vs Constitution
Some of those that say they want to practice their religion as they wish are really saying "practice mine because yours isn't the real religion." Originally Posted by wandering_paladin Ok boys and girls, welcome to political science 101 *takes chalk out and writes "state" on one end of the board, and "church" on the other, with a huge line drawn in the middle* any questions? It's right there in the Constitution. Now that we have that covered...
Once again, I find myself shocked and honestly frightened when I see fellow, *ahem* "Christians" supporting this kind of decision. Don't forget that Christ told us to "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's" and obey what laws we must in what country we are born in. It is our duty to the state and to God in our country to understand that the Church cannot and should not be part of Government. Countless Americans have fought, killed, died, and lost everything they had so that we can be free to practice religion as we see fit, and anyone who supports this decision obviously forgets their courage and their sacrifice. |
31st May 2005, 12:15 PM
|  | Cultivate Honduras
48  
| | Join Date: 6th November 2004 Location: Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Posts: 7,305
Blessings: 25,721,288 My Mood 
Reps: 271,573,656,411,620,480 (power: 271,573,656,411,636) | | | I don't know when the Great Commission was ruled unconstitutional, but that's when Christians lost their right to freely practice our "religion." (I really don't like the term "religion", but it's what has been thrust upon us)
the Great Commission:
"Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to ALL creatures; he who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
blessings
tal
__________________
Pursue love, yet desire earnestly spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
1 Corinthians 14:1 |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
