Catholic Priest: "Gay Relationships=Beastiality". Cathoic School Students: "No. GTFO."

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Article

Apparently DeLaSalle is a Catholic private school so promotion of religious stuff isn't a legal issue.

Obviously the promotion of bigotry? Yeah, still a big issue.

I find it interesting that they (the church representatives) seem to be against adoption too though. Especially since, you know, Catholics run adoption agencies (though they don't like catering to teh gheys).

Mostly though? I just wanted to share this because it made me smile, especially after the event in that "How is this let into Schools" thread.

Also

Hannah said the presenters briefly brought up the amendment but backed off when students got angry.

Should religious organisations be granted tax emempt status if they try to inject their religious beliefs into politics? Doesn't really seem right to me...

Fucking A, that's awesome. We had something like this at my high school once and a lot of students, myself included stood up and told them to GTFO because their ignorance had no place in modern society.

We got in some deep trouble but it was worth it.

I wouldn't give religious organisations charity exempt status at all unless they can prove that the main focus of their organisation is charitable work.

Aside from that, this is really horrible. And I'm glad that they didn't get a good reception from some of the students!

The response is nice, but no, I don't think religious organisations ought to be exempt from taxes. The basis of what constitutes an organisation is flimsy (Examples being Scientology or Kopimism for that) and in return to this right of tax exception they aren't given obligations beyond supporting the supernatural. Massive imbalance between duties and rights there.

It's kind of giving hope that children supposed to be indoctrinated on a private religious school already know better to the point where trying to villify people just makes them angry.

My jaw dropped at that school's principal feeling compelled to paint it like the majority of his students just swallowed the lies though. Why would you want to argue that? Why would you try to paint your own students as timid accepting sheep, when apparently a lot of them are not?

And their spokesperson saying that smashing those preachers is somehow rude... Does he even know what rude is? Rude is going to a school, climbing on a platform and preaching hatred and insulting just about everybody there on a personal level. There's places in this world where you enter through the door but leave through the window if you pull something like that.

They didn't directly say it, but they implied that kids who are adopted or live with single parents are less than kids with two parents of the opposite sex. They implied that a 'normal' family is the best family."

This part caught my eye. I thought "Wait a minute, did they actually imply single parent kids are lesser kids? Or did they imply a single parent child is at a disadvantage in society when compared to a two parent kid?" The more I read, the more I think the former to be the case.

Maybe the speakers could have done with some better parenting, I know plenty of kids and adults that were adopted or raised by single parents (quite a few of the latter in particular) and most of them have more than enough sense to know not to start some shit at a friend's crib.

This article is full of second hand quotes and interpretations of interpretations. On multiple occasions in the article it blatantly swipes away the reality of what was said to focus on what people interpreted it as.

For example, the article has assumed they were intentionally belittling adopted kids and targetting seniors to prep them to vote for constitutional amendments. You even realize this is pretty much nonsense. How about the alternative interpretation that they were trying to have them consider what they will be doing if/when they have their own children and they picked out the seniors as the students closest to the "real world." They weren't saying "if you're adopted your life sucks," they were saying "if you have kids, they will probably be better off if you love them and raise them yourselves."

Does it seem more likely that they picked the seniors because they only care to brainwash people that can vote next election, or that they picked the seniors because underclassmen don't care about their future families yet and would just be wasting time.

tstorm823:
For example, the article has assumed they were intentionally belittling adopted kids and targetting seniors to prep them to vote for constitutional amendments. You even realize this is pretty much nonsense.

That's not an assumption, that's fact. If you go back in time 60 years and go "You are bastard kids cuz you have no father!", you're insulting them. If they didn't want to do that, they wouldn't have said it.

The only thing that's nonsense about it is that it's considered wrong to throw heavy objects at people who say that.

I think everyone has a right to their opinion, and I don't judge them on it. But we don't force people to sit down so we can tell them their opinion is wrong.

Those are some wise words right there.

No I don't think religious groups should be able to claim charitable status when they are as mixed up in politics as that. Now obviously religious groups are always going to have certain beliefs and they are within their rights to express them, and it's not necessarily that easy to tell where you draw the line. However, what has very clearly crossed that line is when you bring up specific amendments in order to convince your listeners to vote a certain way. If you want to preach like that, pay your taxes.

tstorm823:
This article is full of second hand quotes and interpretations of interpretations. On multiple occasions in the article it blatantly swipes away the reality of what was said to focus on what people interpreted it as.

For example, the article has assumed they were intentionally belittling adopted kids and targetting seniors to prep them to vote for constitutional amendments. You even realize this is pretty much nonsense. How about the alternative interpretation that they were trying to have them consider what they will be doing if/when they have their own children and they picked out the seniors as the students closest to the "real world." They weren't saying "if you're adopted your life sucks," they were saying "if you have kids, they will probably be better off if you love them and raise them yourselves."

Does it seem more likely that they picked the seniors because they only care to brainwash people that can vote next election, or that they picked the seniors because underclassmen don't care about their future families yet and would just be wasting time.

That's a very flowery interpretation of this event considering how many people were upset at a Catholic high school. One would think they would have to have really screwed up to turn that crowd against them, and if they managed to make a genuine comparison between homosexuality and bestiality I doubt that was the only bad idea they had that day.

Serge A. Storms:

That's a very flowery interpretation of this event considering how many people were upset at a Catholic high school. One would think they would have to have really screwed up to turn that crowd against them, and if they managed to make a genuine comparison between homosexuality and bestiality I doubt that was the only bad idea they had that day.

You mean from strictly the viewpoint of two of the upset students? Shall we ignore every quote that said it went fine? That first 75% was just there to try and disguise their hatred?

An actual quote or context comparing to bestiality is notably missing. You'd think something as rediculous as comparing gay relationships to bestiality would get some note about what they were talking about, but it doesn't go into details. The students that got upset went so prepared to be upset that they had time to prepare signs. I mean, they do a similar presentation to high school seniors in many catholic schools every year, and they probably heard what was going to happen from the seniors the year before.

I went to Catholic school. I understand exactly the type of presentation it was. And it wasn't the scene this forum thinks it was.

tstorm823:

Serge A. Storms:

That's a very flowery interpretation of this event considering how many people were upset at a Catholic high school. One would think they would have to have really screwed up to turn that crowd against them, and if they managed to make a genuine comparison between homosexuality and bestiality I doubt that was the only bad idea they had that day.

You mean from strictly the viewpoint of two of the upset students? Shall we ignore every quote that said it went fine? That first 75% was just there to try and disguise their hatred?

An actual quote or context comparing to bestiality is notably missing. You'd think something as rediculous as comparing gay relationships to bestiality would get some note about what they were talking about, but it doesn't go into details. The students that got upset went so prepared to be upset that they had time to prepare signs. I mean, they do a similar presentation to high school seniors in many catholic schools every year, and they probably heard what was going to happen from the seniors the year before.

I went to Catholic school. I understand exactly the type of presentation it was. And it wasn't the scene this forum thinks it was.

Since you're from a Catholic school, is it normal for a large segment of the people at that school to be aggressively opposed to anything a religious authority has to say, to the point of mentally preparing themselves to be furious at that authority in response to such a presentation? Or is this school special for being so chock full of assholes?

i see this as good and bad, bad cause the church is still pushing nonsense. good because the students are rejecting it.

Serge A. Storms:

Since you're from a Catholic school, is it normal for a large segment of the people at that school to be aggressively opposed to anything a religious authority has to say, to the point of mentally preparing themselves to be furious at that authority in response to such a presentation? Or is this school special for being so chock full of assholes?

Both of your options are wrong. Find me this "large segment" since the article only really addresses like 5 students. Apparently only 20 students in the whole senior class interacted at all. Sounds like the vast, vast majority of students there were entirely apathetic, and that's pretty much the norm.

In the schools defense the students were being really rude and interruptive and you'd think they'd have gotten suspended for it. The way those students handled the situation was innapropriate and they should've told the principal about it instead of causing a disruption.

tstorm823:

Serge A. Storms:

Since you're from a Catholic school, is it normal for a large segment of the people at that school to be aggressively opposed to anything a religious authority has to say, to the point of mentally preparing themselves to be furious at that authority in response to such a presentation? Or is this school special for being so chock full of assholes?

Both of your options are wrong. Find me this "large segment" since the article only really addresses like 5 students. Apparently only 20 students in the whole senior class interacted at all. Sounds like the vast, vast majority of students there were entirely apathetic, and that's pretty much the norm.

It got enough of a reaction that they cut the assembly short, although one might choose to believe that they simply wrapped it up in a timely fashion without anything of note occurring if that is their preference.

tstorm823:
This article is full of second hand quotes and interpretations of interpretations. On multiple occasions in the article it blatantly swipes away the reality of what was said to focus on what people interpreted it as.

For example, the article has assumed they were intentionally belittling adopted kids and targetting seniors to prep them to vote for constitutional amendments. You even realize this is pretty much nonsense. How about the alternative interpretation that they were trying to have them consider what they will be doing if/when they have their own children and they picked out the seniors as the students closest to the "real world." They weren't saying "if you're adopted your life sucks," they were saying "if you have kids, they will probably be better off if you love them and raise them yourselves."

Does it seem more likely that they picked the seniors because they only care to brainwash people that can vote next election, or that they picked the seniors because underclassmen don't care about their future families yet and would just be wasting time.

Here's the thing; with the last couple of millennia in mind, the catholic church has used up roughly two eternities of benefit of the doubt. If there is a benign explanation and a fucked up explanation when it comes to the catholic church, the safe money is always on the latter.

Xan Krieger:
In the schools defense the students were being really rude and interruptive and you'd think they'd have gotten suspended for it. The way those students handled the situation was innapropriate and they should've told the principal about it instead of causing a disruption.

They were forced to attend a presentation about how evil adoption and homosexuality is, and they should be suspended for not shutting up and applauding?

What the devil?

Amnestic:
snip

I see no reason why religious organizations shouldn't be able to get tax exemptions. As for behavior of the students, no it was inappropriate and I can't help but question how sensitive people are that they would CRY from the assembly.

Elcarsh:

Xan Krieger:
In the schools defense the students were being really rude and interruptive and you'd think they'd have gotten suspended for it. The way those students handled the situation was innapropriate and they should've told the principal about it instead of causing a disruption.

They were forced to attend a presentation about how evil adoption and homosexuality is, and they should be suspended for not shutting up and applauding?

What the devil?

They don't have to like or agree with what it being expressed but just like all other assemblies, students should face repercussions if they break school rules.

Elcarsh:

Xan Krieger:
In the schools defense the students were being really rude and interruptive and you'd think they'd have gotten suspended for it. The way those students handled the situation was innapropriate and they should've told the principal about it instead of causing a disruption.

They were forced to attend a presentation about how evil adoption and homosexuality is, and they should be suspended for not shutting up and applauding?

What the devil?

I never said they had to stand up and applaud, they could've sat there quietly till it was all over.

Serge A. Storms:

It got enough of a reaction that they cut the assembly short, although one might choose to believe that they simply wrapped it up in a timely fashion without anything of note occurring if that is their preference.

Because obviously the upset students being interviewed knew exactly how the assembly was supposed to end, and a questiona nd answer session doesn't make any sense so clearly they made that up just to cover their butts.

Volf:

I see no reason why religious organizations shouldn't be able to get tax exemptions. As for behavior of the students, no it was inappropriate and I can't help but question how sensitive people are that they would CRY from the assembly.

Ummmm, high school kids. They cry about ANYTHING. There were girls in my high school that wanted to cry about things because they thought crying felt good.

Elcarsh:

Here's the thing; with the last couple of millennia in mind, the catholic church has used up roughly two eternities of benefit of the doubt. If there is a benign explanation and a fucked up explanation when it comes to the catholic church, the safe money is always on the latter.

So you're saying that the Catholic churches contributes to food banks to try and brainwash poor people into eating the food they decide? Or Catholic hospitals were built as just a mode of propoganda? You can't say that you take the worse option because two millenia of existance led to a long list of bad things even though that long list is some grossly minute fraction of things the Catholic church has done.

If 1 in every thousand sentences you say is a lie, by the time you're 30 you've said so many lies that we should just assume everything you say is false even if it's really .1%? Sonds like poor logic to me.

This shit wouldn't be happening if religious schools, and in fact all private schools centered on certain ideologies, would be outlawed.

tstorm823:
snip

lol apparently, doesn't make it less laughable.

PercyBoleyn:
This shit wouldn't be happening if religious schools, and in fact all private schools centered on certain ideologies, would be outlawed.

haha, good luck with that. Go try to outlaw religion in the Western world.

PercyBoleyn:
This shit wouldn't be happening if religious schools, and in fact all private schools centered on certain ideologies, would be outlawed.

yes lets ban specific ideologies to prevent stuff like this, while we are at it lets just remove private schools completely. then separate the religious from the secular into their own neighborhoods.

Volf:
haha, good luck with that. Go try to outlaw religion in the Western world.

There's a difference between outlawing religion in public and outlawing it in schools. Religion, or in fact any particular ideology, has no place in schools.

keiskay:
yes lets ban specific ideologies to prevent stuff like this, while we are at it lets just remove private schools completely. then separate the religious from the secular into their own neighborhoods.

As I've said before, religion has no place in school. I'm not saying we should ban religion, way to strawman my argument, I'm saying we should ban it in schools.

PercyBoleyn:

Volf:
haha, good luck with that. Go try to outlaw religion in the Western world.

There's a difference between outlawing religion in public and outlawing it in schools. Religion, or in fact any particular ideology, has no place in schools.

Well I don't see them going anywhere any time soon and if you really don't like them, don't send any future kids to them.

Volf:
Well I don't see them going anywhere any time soon and if you really don't like them, don't send any future kids to them.

It's attitudes like yours that have allowed bullshit like this to occur.

PercyBoleyn:

Volf:
Well I don't see them going anywhere any time soon and if you really don't like them, don't send any future kids to them.

It's attitudes like yours that have allowed bullshit like this to occur.

lol, my "attitude" is nothing more than a observation.

PercyBoleyn:

keiskay:
yes lets ban specific ideologies to prevent stuff like this, while we are at it lets just remove private schools completely. then separate the religious from the secular into their own neighborhoods.

As I've said before, religion has no place in school. I'm not saying we should ban religion, way to strawman my argument, I'm saying we should ban it in schools.

except it is banned in public schools. you don't have to send your kid to a private or charter school. so as far as im concerned you can do whatever you want with your privately funded school, heck you could open an anti-theist private school if you damn well pleased.

Mike O'Keefe, a spokesman for the school, said that other students were mad that some of the students spoke out and thought that some of them were "rude" to the visitors from the archdiocese.

I don't really think they had any right to expect politeness given what they were saying about not only gays, but adopted kids, kids from single parent homes and just anyone not from a "traditional" mommy and daddy and two kids family.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked