Do I disagree with the Church's position towards homosexuality - yes.
Do I dislike the division of schools by religion - yes.
Do I think this rule is not in keeping with what I believed Christianity to be? - yes, I do.
But do I also accept that others may not ahare my view and have an absolute right not to share my views? - yes. I cannot profess to believe in freedom of speach and then deny the legitimacy of someone's else's view because they are not mine. Indeed I even have mixed feeling about banning expression of some of the 'isms' than we worry so much about today. Racial hatred, or sexual discrimination do not go away because we don't talk about them in polite company.
Indeed they may fester and develop becuase unless they are expressed, they cannot be challanged.
I also have little sympathy for anyone who goes out of their way to be offended, for then the offense they feel can only be described as self-inflicted. It a common occurance in Northern Ireland for people to travel many miles or have to set their alarm clocks to be up in time to be offended at an Orange Parade, or a St Patrick's day march or some other sectarian display.
But a line is crossed when freedom of expression and the right to protest turns into threats of violence or raw intimidation. It does not matter what I feel about the person under threat or their views it is the protestor who is in the wrong.
I hate the idea that a child can be excluded from a school because of their parents lifestyle, and if that were the only school in town, or the only good school in town, then I would regard the rule as petty and vindictive. I might even join the protests if there was evidence that children would be substantionally disadvantaged by the rule.
But if that were not the case and, as implied, the attempt to enrole the child was simply to test the policy, then I would regard that with equal distaste.
Update: I've just read the story in the Boulder newspaper. Seems the kid in question is already in the school, in the pre-school class. Have to say that makes a difference to me. I would have thought that a policy which allowed kids already in the school to stay would have been more charitable
no subject
Do I disagree with the Church's position towards homosexuality - yes.
Do I dislike the division of schools by religion - yes.
Do I think this rule is not in keeping with what I believed Christianity to be? - yes, I do.
But do I also accept that others may not ahare my view and have an absolute right not to share my views? - yes. I cannot profess to believe in freedom of speach and then deny the legitimacy of someone's else's view because they are not mine. Indeed I even have mixed feeling about banning expression of some of the 'isms' than we worry so much about today. Racial hatred, or sexual discrimination do not go away because we don't talk about them in polite company.
Indeed they may fester and develop becuase unless they are expressed, they cannot be challanged.
I also have little sympathy for anyone who goes out of their way to be offended, for then the offense they feel can only be described as self-inflicted. It a common occurance in Northern Ireland for people to travel many miles or have to set their alarm clocks to be up in time to be offended at an Orange Parade, or a St Patrick's day march or some other sectarian display.
But a line is crossed when freedom of expression and the right to protest turns into threats of violence or raw intimidation. It does not matter what I feel about the person under threat or their views it is the protestor who is in the wrong.
I hate the idea that a child can be excluded from a school because of their parents lifestyle, and if that were the only school in town, or the only good school in town, then I would regard the rule as petty and vindictive. I might even join the protests if there was evidence that children would be substantionally disadvantaged by the rule.
But if that were not the case and, as implied, the attempt to enrole the child was simply to test the policy, then I would regard that with equal distaste.
Update: I've just read the story in the Boulder newspaper. Seems the kid in question is already in the school, in the pre-school class. Have to say that makes a difference to me. I would have thought that a policy which allowed kids already in the school to stay would have been more charitable