(Christian) School Expels Girl for Having Gay Parents

Does a private school really have a right to decide that a parental relationship (the relationship between the powers) is grounds for not accepting a student?

yes. We dont have to like it, but when the government starts dictating morality to religions, we have all lost.

Beyond that, is what the school is doing right?

Right by whose definition?

Sometimes the "religious right" is far from it, and this seems to be one of those times.

You dont like this case. But the next case where the government forces Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions. is that up to your liking? You have the right to disagree with this school, and their board. you have the right not to send your children there. Since when do you have the right to dictate their beliefs to them? Since when does the government? It is not only the religious right. try Googling Homophobia and the left's banishment.

Do they have the right? Absolutely. It's freedom of association.

Is it right? I'm sure they think it is. You obviously disagree.

Where is the "compassion for thy neighbors ..."? I'm sure they thought long and hard before making this decision and would love to have the opportunity to do something that would help "straighten the girl's life out" (no pun intended). That's not the subject of the article, though, so of course it's not mentioned.

Is "the child of a gay ... a sinner?" Yes. Everybody's a sinner. Plus, there's that whole "the sins of the father are visited upon his sons unto the 7th generation" thing, but that's old testament.

More to the point, there's the fear of contamination by association. The school clearly wants to maintain a certain message and teach its version of morality. Homosexuality, in most variations of Christianity, is bad. Associating with someone who is constantly exposed to homosexuality would weaken the message the school is trying to send.

I believe it's called the "right to association" and we all have it. It's our right to choose who we associate with, according to whatever criteria we like.

What I love is the statement put out by the school, available here. It's in PDF format so I've retyped it:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding a student that had been enrolled at Ontario Christian School. The student is not attending Ontario Christian, as the family does not meet admissions criteria. The ministry of Ontario Christian is to promote discipleship of Jesus Christ as defined by the Bible and consistent with historical Christianity. The school forms a voluntary partnership with parents who seek the same discipleship. Therefore, the school requires that at least one parent be a confessing Christian and active in the local Christian church. In this case, the parent does not meet the criteria by participating in a homosexual relationship. We regret that this relationship was not discolsed at the time of admission, as that information would have prevented enrollment and the occasion for misunderstanding.

The mission of Ontario Christian school is to provide for the children of Christian parents a Biblically-based, quality education that nurtures students to grow in knowledge, conviction and maturity; therefore, our focus is to equip students with the vision and skills to engage all relationships and culture under the authority of Jesus Christ.


Let me emphasize the irony here: "our focus is to equip students with the vision and skills to engage all relationships and culture under the authority of Jesus Christ."

Other than being somewhat nebulous, it's also ridiculously contrary. As I recall, Jesus hung out with a lot of non-Christians and at least one prostitute on several occasions. But I suppose since Jesus didn't hang out with gays insofar as the Bible says, it's OK to snub them nowadays.

Yes the school has the right, and yes they can define their own right/wrong, but I don't think it's doing any good things for the world. How abysmally small-minded.

-A.

Angolesque,

You can copy and paste from PDF. best to copy to the clipboard, then paste into notepad, and then copy and paste into the browser.

That being said, I dont disagree with (I expect) your opinion. However, I do support them to believe what they want. I for one am not going to dictate beleifs and opinions, whether it is religion based or not.

I dont like it, but I have to support their right to believe what they do, no matter how abhorant.

I've looked in to private Christian schools for my kids.

All the ones I received literature on had very strict guidelines about what was expected of the student AND the parents. The parents aren't just to dump the kids at school and go on their merry way. They are to participate in the school functions AND lead a life that honors Christ. (And each school details those characteristics.) You also usually sign a statement of faith.

I can't imagine Canada is all that different. So the parents were probably violating a very basic contractual agreement. They knew they were gay when they signed their kid up for the school, and knew as well Christianity does not embrace homosexuality.

My question is WHAT ARE THE PARENTS DOING TO THAT KID? They knew the schools stand I can guarantee it. So why would they send their kid to a school that tells her everything her mommy's do together is wrong?

There is so much more to this story. Maybe a lawsuit or something? Just too many holes.

I think it is stupid, and counter productive for what the school claims to be. Shunning people isn't the goal of a religion who seeks to change people to their frame of mind. They've shown that in reality they don't care about people's souls, and they most certainly don't care about the kids who have nothing to do with the mother's sexuality.

That said, I tend to lean toward the idea that anyone can do anything they like with private property, private businesses, and private organizations. I think if the Boy Scouts don't want gay scout leaders, it is their right. I think if they don't want this girl in their school, that, too is their right.

From a business sense, from a moral sense, etc., it is the worst possible thing they could have done. They've discarded a CHILD that they supposedly cared about, and gained more bad press than one could ever imagine. But, I believe you have the right to shoot yourself in the foot, and I think they have.

From a business sense, from a moral sense, etc., it is the worst possible thing they could have done.

Depends on who you are trying to attract to your school.

Punishing the children for their parents sins isn't something you'd do to attract Christians. Nor would be turning children away who they would claim have no moral guidence.

They basically said, "we aren't interested in your soul, we are afraid your sinfulness might rub off." So, maybe if there are still sects of Pharisees floating around, it might be their target audience. Nevertheless, I think they have the right to choose who goes to school there.

I agree they have the right as well....I guess we "see" the coverage of the story different.

I see two women who lied on an application to get their child into a school they knew they had to lie to get into.

If they were heterosexual and lied about their income or any other aspect of their contract, it would become null and void.

Now those parents are blaming the school when they should be talking to their kid about why you shouldn't lie to get your way.

I don't think the school threw the child away. It is their responsibility to think of ALL their students, not just one. It's called accountability. If I do something that makes my kids suffer, I am responsible, not the party who calls me to account.

That is why I am sure there will be more out of this...like a lawsuit. There is more going on here than what the article reflects.

My first question to the parents: What motivated you to enroll your child in a school you knew would not welcome your lifestyle?

I think Baker is absolutely right on this one. The school certainly has the 'right' to turn this girl away, but they are completely failing to understand their own faith in doing so.

Now, you may think that it's totally laughable for a non-christian like me to claim to understand christianity better than 'bible-believing christians', but hey, I'm a smart guy and I guess I sometimes let that go to my head

I know my Bible quite well, and my theology better. I also have a more than passing acquaintance with human psychology, so I understand exactly what motivates that farrago of self-righteousness, judgementalism and anger that some of the 'born-again' find as an easy cop-out alternative to "loving thy neighbour as thyself".

The unstinting loving and self-giving that christians are called to is too tough for me, so I pass on it for myself (I also have issues with some of the supernatural claims, though not with the supernatural: without a supernatural dimension religious morality would be meaningless, because it would be impossible).

In my (inexpert) opinion the really christian thing to have done would have been to assert a 'right' to expel the girl, then not use it - a bit like picking up the first stone and choosing not to cast it

The christian message is one of the most beautiful, inspirational and hope-giving visions in this world. Sadly, it is mostly represented to us by christians.

I am afraid I am going to have TO DISAGREE WITH BAKER AND and agree with Tova, a lie is a lie and the consequences for that lie was expulsion from school.

The "parents" LIED PERIOD and now because they are GAY ARE whining and wanting some kind of exemption from THEIR lie.

lie is a lie and the consequences for that lie was expulsion from school.

That's a perfectly acceptable alternative way of looking at it, seeing it as a kind of 'contractual' thing that the parents broke by not meeting the school's 'standards', but from a 'religious' point of view it is still very disappointing.

I'm not clear exactly what you mean about them whining "because they are gay". Presumably you mean that they are trying to claim 'victim' status. Well, in a way they are victims, not so much of discrimination but of a failure of religious imagination.

Hey, if they want to toss the girl for lying on her admissions, cool. That isn't what they are throwing her out for. The article says:

"immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship,"

Which is obviously shunning the child for the sins of the parents. Are they afraid they might get lez germs? No, they are snotty pharisees who have every right to make their school as heterosexual, or white, or elitist as they want.

What they can't do is convince me it is a "Christian" school in anything more than name. If I recall much about the Bible, it is that the people who tried constantly to not associate with anyone "unclean" were usually on the other side of Jesus's arguments.

Mark 10:

[13] And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
[14] But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
[15] Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
[16] And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.


It is my personal belief, granted, and I don't want to foist it on anyone, but the last people you turn your back on are children. Your own mileage may vary, void where prohibited.

Several folks touched on part of what I was trying to get at here.

By what I know of what should be (in my own memories and beliefs of things) Christianity, no one should ever be turning away someone that is seeking a closer relationship with Christianity/God/Jesus/the Church.

It happens frequently though, with various religions that are more concerned over technical issues than over the real effort that some people do put into trying to be a better Christian.

It seems very hypocritical (to me at least) that a Christian school would turn away anyone for what others around them may do. What did the expect, the child would go home immediately and tell her parents that they must break up because they are sinning, and if they didn't do so they'd all go to hell and oh, by the way, she'd get expelled from the school. I know in many religions there's a constant effort to put fear into followers of the religion. If you don't do X, you'll go to hell. If you don't give X amount of your income away to the Church, you'll go to hell. On and on. Again, none of which seems to me to be in the spirit of what really should be Christianity.

Does a private school really have a right to decide that a parental relationship (the relationship between the powers) is grounds for not accepting a student? Beyond that, is what the school is doing right? Dismissing the student because the students parents are not in meeting with the moral standards of the school seems unfair to the student and very prejudicial. If the student was a very gifted student who happened to be interested in becoming a priest or lets say a nun, would the actions of the school be correct?

Do they have the right to do what they did? Legally, yes! Moral right to do so? Not so sure. If it goes against "church doctrine", then they did it correctly. Use roman catholic as an example. Homosexuality goes against "every" tenent of their teachings. So had they let her stay it would be breaking from what they teach. To "not" do so would be hypocritical at best. I'm still not saying what they did was right. All I'm saying here is that I can see the schools point.

"Use roman catholic as an example. Homosexuality goes against "every" tenent of their teachings. So had they let her stay it would be breaking from what they teach. To "not" do so would be hypocritical at best."

If the child was a homosexual, I might be more apt to agree with you. I know of no church doctrine that teaches you should shun a child for what their parents do.