Catholic bigots harm child’s education

A child in Massachusetts was set to attend school at St. Paul Elementary School, but the sexually immature chief bigots, Rev. James Rafferty and Principal Cynthia Duggan, rescinded their acceptance of this new student because his mother is a lesbian. But in a surprising move, another sexually immature Catholic leader has stepped up to the plate in an attempt to quell the flaming bigotry.

The head of education for the Boston Archdiocese offered Thursday to help find a different Catholic school for a boy denied acceptance at a Hingham Catholic school because his parents are gay.

In a statement, superintendent Mary Grassa O’Neill said she spoke with a parent of the 8-year-old boy and “offered to help enroll her child in another Catholic school in the archdiocese.”

“We believe that every parent who wishes to send their child to a Catholic school should have the opportunity to pursue that dream,” O’Neill said.

Insofar as someone has a “dream” involving Freddy Krueger, sure that’s a dream.

This is surprising on a couple levels. First, I attended a Catholic school – which, incidentally, offered an excellent education bar the religion – and I vividly recall being told on multiple occasions that any and all students were welcome. The specific examples given were students of different religions, but it was a blanket statement we were being given, so I presume someone having a gay parent would have been just as irrelevant. Of course, this is New England, the place where bigotry tends to be less prevalent. Second, the Catholic church is against all sorts of random junk. No meat on Good Friday, no divorce, no birth control – plenty of parents go against all these haphazard (sometime irresponsible) teachings of the church. It is only the overwhelming sexual immaturity of these Christians which can explain the pointed bigotry towards gays. It’s disgusting.

While it looks like a new, clear policy is going to come from the Boston archdiocese which does not arbitrarily discriminate, that isn’t the case in another recent act of shame.

The Massachusetts case is similar to a decision by a Catholic school in Boulder, Colo., the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which said two children of lesbian parents could not re-enroll because of their parents’ sexual orientation. The Denver Archdiocese backed the school’s decision.

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Allow fewer and fewer children to be polluted with the mind virus of religion while growing animosity towards an already battered institution? Sure.

20 Responses

  1. What makes this discrimination more insidious that usual is that it is not for what the child has done, nor even for what the child is, but for who the child is associated with!

  2. i would have imagined you would supported their decision not to accept him as a child “saved” from the clutches of harmful religion.

  3. “Maybe this is a blessing in disguise. Allow fewer and fewer children to be polluted with the mind virus of religion while growing animosity towards an already battered institution? Sure.”

  4. i know, i was directing that towards bob.

  5. And I was ignoring it because it was one of your idiotic projections, Nate. I never expect anything normal from you.

  6. always with the name calling

  7. “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing opinion.”

    in effect that is nearly everyone on earth… maybe we don’t even really need the word. we can replace it with “human”.

  8. I called it an idiotic projection. That is classifying your behavior. It is not calling you a name. Learn the difference. You get labeled by your actions, Nate. It was offensive for you to project what you think my words should be.

  9. So now Nate characterizes everyone on earth as obstinate or intolerant. Nice.

  10. you would be labeled obstinate, intolerant, high handed and spiteful by your words than?

    i actually think it is a very poor definition. Everyone, on some things, is stuck in their own opinions.

  11. I prefer:

    Bigotry, n: actively seeking or supporting the restriction of rights of an individual or group without showing how said individual or group infringe upon the rights of others.

    Said restriction need not be done by law to happen.

  12. We all have our preferences. With that comes the difficult task of determining what is a right and what is not.

    I heard this interesting scenario today:

    A black man applies for a job. He is the only applicant. The owner of the business says he does not want to hire a black man.

    So the big question is: Does the applicant have a right to not be discriminated against because of his skin color by a private business?

    If the answer is yes, and most of us would say so, that means a business owner does not have the right to hire whomever he wants and society can tell him whom to hire with his money.

    I can see both sides of the issue, and I find that the more I consider it, many rights are not straight forward. Grant rights to person X and person Y loses something. The issue of who determines what rights we have and do not have is pretty scary also.

  13. That we aren’t an ideological, libertarian society does not mean rights are not straight forward.

  14. You may be right about society, but I don’t think it matters very much. The government gets to decide what rights we all have, despite the obvious issues this always causes. We are possession of an extremely ideological congress and president at the moment. Nanny state here we come.

  15. “The government gets to decide what rights we all have, despite the obvious issues this always causes.”

    We, the people, are the government. Your statement is false.

    “We are possession of an extremely ideological congress and president at the moment.”

    It is about 10% as ideological as the previous administration who actively worked against the vast majority of the people it was supposed to represent and for a few special interests, doing nearly the opposite of what it stated. This was corrected by an election. The current congress is also not as ideological as the Newt Gingrich/Tom Delay band of fascist ideologues.

  16. If my statement is false than yours must be as well. Bush was elected than re-elected, but that certainly doesn’t mean that “we the people” are the government. we get to pick the government that’s all.

    If republicans gain one or both houses this fall will that also be a “correction”? If Obama runs again and loses, will you consider that a correction?

    “fascist ideologues”

    As opposed to the current socialist ideologues?

  17. “Bush was elected than re-elected, but that certainly doesn’t mean that “we the people” are the government. we get to pick the government that’s all. ”

    Right, we pick the government, so we are the government. Bush lied about his agenda and fooled most people until they couldn’t stand him anymore and his popularity went down to nearly 20% when his lies were exposed.

    “If republicans gain one or both houses this fall will that also be a “correction”?”

    Yes, it would be. That is because people like me who are progressives or atheists or humanists or agnostics are open to reality and accept what happens, unlike people who rely on faith instead of thinking. A huge portion of the right wing are closed minded fundagelical types who “know” what is better for everyone.

    “As opposed to the current socialist ideologues?”

    When you look up and understand what socialism actually is then we can talk about it. I won’t discuss it with the uninformed.

  18. Both side of the aisle certainly think they know what is best for everyone, and they are both wrong of course. I would much rather live under a libertarian government than one on the opposite end of the spectrum.

    I see much greater intrusion from the government these days than I ever did, despite many many other faults, from the previous administration.

    I am well aware of what socialism is, perhaps you should take a look at what a fascist is.

  19. A libertarian government would be the absolute worst kind. “Me, me, me, me, me, me, and fuck everyone else” would be its motto and total anarchy would be the result of few laws, business would run amok and the result would be chaos.

  20. What is big government besides big business with the power to imprison you?

    However its certainly possible that you may be right. When I look at very restrictive governments I don’t see they have the issues very much under control either. Which makes me wonder…. laws don’t help and neither does a lack of them, so what do we do.

    I didn’t say I wanted a government like that, I only said I would prefer it to one that ran every aspect of my life.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: