[Bonaparte]

As I understand your statement, you agree that a private school has the right to decide who will and will not attend but you believe this particular school is being hypocritical and unfair by not letting the girl stay so she can benefit from their good moral influence. IOW, that they are denying her the help a good Christian is expected to provide and punishing her for the "parents'" wrongdoing. (Let me know if I've misunderstood you.)

Can a person be held accountable for the wrongdoing of another?

Sure. One of my employees in my delivery business gets drunk on the job and runs over a wage-earning husband and father. My business (ie. me) gets sued for more than my insurance will cover and I'm ruined, along with my family. And this is in spite of the fact that I personally did nothing wrong. Because of my association with my employee, I share in the liability.

My son winds up killing his girlfriend's father because he's been told he can't see her anymore. And in spite of everything my wife and I have done to raise the boy right and in spite of the fact that my wife and I have done nothing wrong, we lose everything in a wrongful death lawsuit. Because of our association with own son, we share in the liability.

So it's real clear that a person can be held liable for the wrongdoing of someone else, isn't it?

Now before you say, "But Bonaparte, we're talking here about a child being held responsible for the misbehavior of adults!", consider this...

A couple with 3 kids defaults on the mortgage and loses the family home. When they are kicked out of there, the kids have to go too. But how can this be? The kids did nothing wrong. Shouldn't they be allowed to stay in that house, in spite of the fact that this is now somebody's else's property? I think we can agree that the kids are just going to have to suffer along with their parents, aren't they?

You might say at this point, "But Bonaparte, the people who repossessed that house don't claim to subscribe to Christian principles! They have not placed themselves under any obligation but their own financial self-interest!" Well, that's true enough. So the question becomes "What are these Christian principles?"

When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin. But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that. What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian [both "parents" signed a written article of faith] yet indulges in sexual sin [both parents are utterly unrepentent lesbians], or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler."

-- 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

You see the problem here, radioman? If the school keeps the girl, they are still associated with the "parents," who are unrepentent sinners in violation of the contract with school. They can't very well enter into a separate, legally binding contract with a 14-year-old, can they? And even if they could, they would still be associated with the "parents" through the necessity of communicating with them about their child's performance, needs, activities, permissions, etc. That's why the contract is with the whole family and if one goes, all go.

You might say at this point, that the school has a higher Christian obligation to "help" the girl by keeping her on but that doesn't skate either -- the girl can get all the Christian help she needs from Christian outreach workers regularly coming to the home. And she can get all the education she needs by attending another school that doesn't require moral behavior from her parents.

I'm almost done, so bear with me if you will.

In all the years this girl has attended OCS, how successful has the school been in their efforts to instill Christian values in her? How receptive has she been to their teaching? Apparently, not very. She has come out publicly in support of her "parents'" unrepentent sin. (It's right there in the posted article, if you doubt this.)

What it all boils down to is this: It isn't up to you to decide what Christian precepts this school will obey. As is their right, they have chosen to listen to this --

"Unless you repent, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven."

[radioman]

You see the problem here, radioman? If the school keeps the girl, they are still associated with the "parents," who are unrepentent sinners in violation of the contract with school

I do not deny the right of a private school to deny her admission. But, I believe they are not only wrong, they are attacking an innocent child...That is my opinion, and like I said before, my contributions to the Christian charity I contribute to would stop if they discriminated against a child for the behavior of a parent.

The examples you offer do not justify the action of the school. You may suffer because of your drunk employee or your murderous son, but that does not justify the treatment of the child in this case.

This school has thrown away the chance to help a kid simply because they do not like what her mom does with her crotch. This, to a Deist, is a crime against God.
.

[zipper]

Good post, detailed analysis. I think the key here is "unrepentant", as you noted.