It's no big secret where the school stands on the issue of same-sex couples. In fact, the very title of the school contains a word the should tell anyone bothering to pay attention how it would come down on an issue like this: the word "Catholic."
The Catholic Church hasn't exactly been vague about how it views marriage and sexuality. And the school correctly underscored its adherence to Catholic teachings. All of them.
So then what do you say about the two girls?
Well, for one thing, if they don't believe in Catholic teachings, then why are they enrolled in an institution whose stated purpose is to teach them to students? And given this, why were they surprised when the school acts on these principles? Is it really all that shocking?
Would anyone be surprised if they weren't allowed to brings drinks to an AA meeting? Are there really people out there who wouldn't be able to figure out why they couldn't smoke while sitting under a "No smoking" sign? Maybe there are, I don't know. But it's kind of hard to empathize with them.
I know it's a revolutionary concept, but if you don't agree with the beliefs of an institution, then don't join it. Go join one you agree with. Better yet, found your own. One nice thing about belonging to an institution you founded yourself is that you'll never have to kick yourself out.
In fact, the girls told the newspapers that they went out and had their own little party in the parking lot and had just a fine time. Good. I'm happy for them. But that doesn't seem to be enough. They seem to want the school to change its policy and violate it's own standards.
The girls argue that they would have been fine with the school's action if they had been consistent:
“I would understand and respect the school’s decision if they truly upheld church teachings,” Wright said. “They didn’t forbid the entrance of all the couples who’ve had premarital sex and all the kids who planned to get drunk after the prom.”Raise your hand if you really think it would have been just fine with the girls if the school had barred everyone from the prom for doing all these things. Now, those of you who did? We're going to show you the door here at Vital Remnants for violating our policy of being hopeless credulous.
You can go have your own little gullibility party outside. Have fun.
Of course, there's very little the school can do about the dissolute behavior that goes on outsides its doors, other than teach students why they shouldn't act this way when its got them inside its doors, which, hopefully, it does. The argument would make more sense if the drinking and the premarital sex were actually happening on the premises during the prom. But it isn't.
But for argument's sake, let's say the school really wasn't upholding its standards on other kinds of bad behavior. It is really a mature position to take to say that the school should lower its ethical bar further because it won't let you do what you want to do? No, its not.
In fact, that's why they're students and other people are teachers and administrators. The latter are presumed to be mature and the former are not.
And these particular students just confirmed that.
8 comments:
'Of course, there's very little the school can do about the dissolute behavior that goes on outsides its doors, other than teach students why they shouldn't act this way when its got them inside its doors, which, hopefully, it does. The argument would make more sense if the drinking and the premarital sex were actually happening on the premises during the prom. But it isn't.'
But these girls were not engaging in lesbian sex on the premises, were they? So how come they got singled out? How come everyone else who behaves 'immorally' according to Catholic teachings gets to have their prom, but these two girls don't?
The excuse that 'oh, it would have been impossible to enforce' just illustrates that the school made a special point of discriminating against these girls - yes, they discriminated, because if they had treated all 'immoral' students the same, they would have either allowed these girls to go to prom, or they would have barred all students of whom it was known that they were engaging in premarital sex, drinking, contraception, celebrating mass with protestants - the list goes on and on, doesn't it?
If it's too difficult to enforce - don't enforce it or don't have a prom. Don't single out two students and ruin their prom.
Martin,
Since you recognize the right of Lexington Catholic to bar these students from Prom, why do you consider it horrible oppression for a Shopping Center to bar Pacquiao from using their premises for an interview?
KyCobb,
Where did I question the legal right of the mall to ban Pacquiao?
KyCobb,
My point was simply to underscore the first part of Liberalism's three-part motto:
Uniformity is Diversity
Favoritism is Equality
Bigotry is Tolerance
Martin,
I didn't say you questioned the mall's legal right to ban him, but you criticized them for it, even though they were just exercising the same rights as Lexington Catholic.
KyCobb,
The issue has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with the hypocrisy of people who are always preaching tolerance but don't practice it themselves.
Martin,
But aren't you being hypocritical for criticizing intolerance? If the shopping center banned Dan Savage, you would rush to its defense. Besides, the shopping center doesn't care about tolerance; it just wants to avoid controversy.
KyCobb,
The shopping center was trying to avoid controversy? Right.
If I want to avoid controversy, I'm going to ban one of the world's most popular sports figures from my shopping mall.
Nobody will ever know.
Post a Comment