Posted on 09/23/2005 6:11:36 AM PDT by 69ConvertibleFirebird
Two things:
1) Congratulations to the school for standing on solid, moral, principle.
2) A BS article in that the liberal writer doesn't understand that the child can not have two parents of the same sex. The writer must understand that the child would not have been born with "parents" such as this.
We must remember to lover the sinner (all of us) but not endorse and/or condone the sin...
Please leave me alone.
Oh, now you've done it! ;)
I agree with you on most points, except that this is a private school and can do whatever they want according to their charter.
I think it's shortsighted and mean spirited, but they have a right to be shortsighted and mean spirited.
The part of the story that's missing is what the daughter was saying to the other students at the game. Obviously this got the ball rolling. She could have been preaching to the other students that it was "ok" what her "parents" were doing. I could very easily see something like this concerning the school officials, and them investigating.
"...engage in practices "immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style"
I'll congratulate them if you can show where they forbid children of divorced parents or worse, children who's parents have divorced and remarried. Until then it sounds like another case of selective morality to me.
"I read and try to follow the words of Christ."
I agree and do the same. I hope it was clear that I was quoting from another poster.
How is it possible for lesbian parents to "go and sin no more"?
If you don't think for a second these "parents" didn't enroll this child for political purposes then you're selectively arrogant. Why exactly would members of the Film Actors Guild enroll "their" kid in a school that will teach that their parents are immoral, because the parents are trying to repent? Not only are they using "their" child for some sick political stunt they're also involving the other children at that school all in the name of justifying their selfish perversion.
Everybody, look on this page from the schools website.
http://www.ocschools.org/about/admissions.cfm
Apparently they require a "Family Interview". I wonder if the interview took place if the parents lied to get her in the school
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/12720700.htm
This link has a little bit more info on the story. It actually makes the school look worse.
I'll try to respond to your concerns below...
"Jesus did not fellowship with the people. He circulated among them, then separated Himself to teach, and nurture His immediate followers, the twelve."
Jesus most certainly ate with "sinners." The post I was referring to (I quoted it) defined fellowship as "(eating, etc)."
"Indeed, Paul was preaching to the converted. This was a Christian School. How would it NOT apply?"
I'm not entirely certain, but I would not equate a Christian school with a church. Christian schools where I live have many, many non-Christian students. They are meant to be primarily outreaches to the community, not primarily places of worship. Paul was talking about a church member in the verse you mention. The school has the task of deciding whether such a directive applies to its students, as well. They made a decision that you agree with in this case, but could easily have interpreted the situation differently.
"Her parents have no issue they can sue for."
Anyone can sue for anything, and they certainly have in the past (e.g., James Dale got all the way to the Supreme Court over a private organization). Fortunately, the parents decided not to make a fuss. I think that's an admirable course of action in such a situation.
"They say they have been together for 22 yrs, these two 'parents'. So where did the kids come from?"
I imagine that they came from the same place as kids in infertile heterosexual relationships (e.g., IVF or adoption).
"Where do you think they are headed."
I'm optimistic about them, compared with a lot of kids today. They've apparently lived in stable two-parent home for their whole lives, they have parents who cared enough to put them in a Christian school, and who were mature enough not to overreact and make them a cause celebre when they were booted.
It may not be the best parenting situation, but it compares favorably to some others that I'm aware of.
"It is also not "Christian", to discount Scripture, because you "feel" bad about the kids. But, I guess you don't have those standards, by which to measure..."
I'll leave that to your judgment, since you are apparently much holier than I am...
"I think it's shortsighted and mean spirited, but they have a right to be shortsighted and mean spirited."
I agree with that too.
>>Didn't Jesus say "Judge not lest ye be judged"?<<
I really find it bothersome when people fall back on this passage, take it entirely out of context, and use it as a way of "proving" that we can't make discerned judgements.
There is righteous judgement and unrighteous judgement. Scripture tells us to test everything (to Scripture) (1 Thess 5v21), to hold people accountable (Ezekiel 33v6), to avoid evil (1 Thess 5v22), to avoid false teachers (1 Tim 1ff), and to not yolk ourselves with non-believers (2 Cor 6v14).
Can't do any of that without making a judgement, can you?
There is a difference.
Examples:
Unrighteous Judgement - "You're going to hell because of what you said!"
Righteous Judgement - "What you said does not line up with Scripture, and is therefore wrong."
1 Cor 5 is meaningless without Paul making a righteous judgement of the Corintian church.
Galatians 1v6-9; the same
Paul's instructions in Titus 2:15 is rendered irrelevant
God is the ultimate judge of our hearts, but we are commanded to hold things in the light of Scripture, and discern between what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is evil. And you can't do any of that without making a judgement.
There are Biblical allowances for divorce. In the instance of infidelity, for example.
>>I read Matthew Mark Luke and John. Thats it, no Paul.<<
Then you are woefully ignorant. Do you completely disregard the Old Testament as well?
Considering that without the Old Testament, the New Testament, especially concerning Christ's divinity and authority, makes no sense, and is not based on anything substantial?
If they had an ulterior motive then why aren't they raising a stink about it and threatening to take it to court? Instead they've accepted the decision of the school and aren't fighting it. Doesn't sound like 'dykes with a cause' to me.
Not only are they using "their" child for some sick political stunt they're also involving the other children at that school all in the name of justifying their selfish perversion.
About the only think being exposed here is the school's hypocritical, selective morality.
Then why would they want their child to go to such a school?
Ignore the fact that this is a religious or a christian school and a basic fact still remains this school requires it's students to be from conventional and well adjusted families.
Those that come from any other type of socially experimental family units are not allowed to go to school there.
That's the bottom line, you want to go to school here, you obey our rules and requirements.
Not according to Mark 5. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. "
Can people who divorce and remarry send their children to this school? Even though they are living an adulterous lifestyle?
Gee, I don't know. Maybe they thought it was a good school and they appreciated the disciplined environment? The usual reasons why anyone chooses a private school.
Ignore the fact that this is a religious or a christian school and a basic fact still remains this school requires it's students to be from conventional and well adjusted families.
Define conventional and well adjusted. The two women had been together for over 20 years. How many of the heterosexual parents can say that? Is a single parent family conventional? How do they determine how many of the families are well adjusted? Do they have to take a test or submit to inspections?
That's the bottom line, you want to go to school here, you obey our rules and requirements.
Which they did, until their kid was kicked out. Let's not kid ourselves that it was for anything other than the fact that the parents were homosexuals and the school has a selective sense of what is moral and what is not. They could have been a married couple where the father was abusive and the mother was a drunk and the school would have accepted their tuition.
Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.