Has your kid gone to a school with very different cultural religious or other values?

<p>

</p>

<p>In my experience, Catholic school - we had Mass before every game, pre game prayer in the locker room, and sometimes the priest would pray over us during halftime. It wasn’t quite Touchdown Jesus; more like Touchdown Mary. After the game, there was often prayer in one of the endzones as well – with, and in full view of the general public. </p>

<p>My kids went to various high schools in the south. They were never prayed for before, during, or after any of their events as far as I know. At one school I think they had a student run club that would meet near the flagpole some mornings, not sure - my kids never endeavored to get to school that early. </p>

<p>That’s my answer, but I still don’t know how the question is relevant.</p>

<p>Humorous that you consider the idea that churches want to be able to disallow marriages in their churches to be a strawman argument. As soon as some states allowed gay marriage, the lawsuits started against church owned properties. California tested Prop 8.
They lost. And if you somehow think that California is now conservative Christian, I’d like to know what you define as a liberal state. If this were NOT an attack on the church, gays would be happy with civil unions. There would be no legal difference. Most Americans agree on that. Even in the Bible belt. So the fact that gays will not accept this means that there is another goal.</p>

<p>[Religion</a> Clause: Bill Proposed In California To Protect Clergy From Perfoming Same-Sex Marriages](<a href=“http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/01/bill-proposed-in-california-to-protect.html]Religion”>Religion Clause: Bill Proposed In California To Protect Clergy From Perfoming Same-Sex Marriages)
Obviously, some gay religious freedom advocates agree that this is absolutely NOT a strawman argument. I believe that a compromise will be made. But that compromise will need to be made in a way that is uncompromisingly respectful of faith.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So, you think gays are investing so much and working so hard to get the equal right to marriage to spite the church? Wow, do you also believe Elvis is alive and 911 was orchestrate by CIA?</p>

<p>I don’t know whether I should chalk it up as paranoia or megalomania…</p>

<p>“If this were NOT an attack on the church, gays would be happy with civil unions. There would be no legal difference.”</p>

<p>I don’t understand this. It ignores the fact that many gay people are Christians, and that a large percentage of people in “real” marriages (not civil unions) are not Christians.</p>

<p>If you believe marriage is an important cultural tradition, and is sacred, how could you believe that same sex couples desire something that is completely different, but with “no legal difference.” They don’t want to be married just for the piece of paper any more than you or I do!</p>

<p>I disagree, 50isthenew40. While I don’t know if I’ll even get married, I want to know I CAN get a civil marriage. I think I’d rather there be nothing at all instead of having civil unions in place of civil marriage for gays. It’s extremely patronizing. The goal behind gay marriage is equality under the law in every way possible. It’s not about taking over religion or even wanting to be a part of a “sacred tradition.” Its about deinstitutionalizing discrimination.</p>

<p>I couldn’t care less about who religion discriminates against. I just want people to keep that discrimination inside their churches and outside of our government. PLEASE, get rid of DOMA under the provision that nobody can force churches to marry gays. In fact, do it under the provision that churches can not marry gays - that would be healthier for the LGB community.</p>

<p>panther, I think that is a very respectful position, and I would be proud to refer to you and your partner as married under the law. Obviously the poster ahead of you has no respect for religious freedom or differing opinions. I think there is a large majority of people who would absolutely support civil marriage and we should get on with it.</p>

<p>^You know, most of the time those “and we promise the churches don’t have to change their ways” are put in there to please people like you. It’s not because “teh gayz” agree with you about it being an issue. In fact, I’m confidant in saying that the vast majority of us know it ISN’T an issue. But we have to say that or you guys will say “But the gays will sue us to get married in our Churches! You’re taking away our rights to speak against homosexuality.” Pizzagirl is 100% right, it’s a complete strawman argument. It’s disgusting that we have to add that provision to shut people up, and even THEN they aren’t happy. I would suggest you do some research on some of the professional anti-gays like Bryan Fisher and Maggie Gallagher. I think if you have a thinking mind at all (and you’ve given me reason to believe you do) you’d agree their beliefs, and Fisher’s comments, are deplorable.</p>

<p>Well, I’m sure this thread is giving the OP lots of food for thought on the attitudes her son is going to encounter if he goes to a “conservative, Southern Baptist leaning” school. Personally, I would recommend against it for a kid with gay parents.</p>

<p>There are a lot of southerners who are pro-gay, don’t think conflict in Israel hails the coming of the Messiah, etc. But it’s disingenous to a) pretend that those people aren’t out there or b) deny that there’s a larger concentration of them in the south than in other parts of the US.</p>

<p>I live in Washington. I just moved from the more conservative side (the eastern half) to the more liberal side (the western half.) Let me tell you . . . It’s not a case of “every place is the same, la di da!” There can be a BIG HUGE cultural difference between two places, even two places that aren’t that far apart.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What’s disingenuous is pretending that some of the anti southern, anti Christian comments in this thread reflect anything more than northern liberal bias and disdain. </p>

<p>No matter how one chooses to couch it, assigning, abiding by, and encouraging others to accept broad brush stereotypes, is a) lazy thinking, and b) the antithesis of one of the most important goals in possessing an education. </p>

<p>Yes, there are some prevailing differences attached to various locales around our country, indeed, around the world, but it is never appropriate to judge individuals on that basis alone – especially when the context is demeaning. Creating fear, being fearful of, and avoiding people in an entire region of the country – because of the possibility you might encounter someone who believes in prayer, speaks differently, or disagrees with your particular world view – only assures that we will continue to pass on these ridiculous prejudices unfettered.</p>

<p>^While I agree blind fear and loathing are a terrible thing, this isn’t exactly blind: that is to say… as a gay man myself, and having seen 8 The Mormon Proposition I would be uncomfortable in very rural areas of the country. I have no doubt there are quite a few out there that would jump at the chance to tie me up in some room and try to “cure” me just because I like boys instead of girls. I think most people in the gay community have legitimate reasons to despise certain locations in America because of what’s been done there historically, to them. I feel the same way about all other minority groups, they’d have legitimte reason based on the history of the country to have issues with certain states. And because there are still crazies out there, and they hold, while not a majority opinion, but ENOUGH of a minority opinion to be a “vocal minority” that that’s too many people.</p>

<p>I am a Christian, a homeschooler and have lived in many places over the years. I have never heard anyone praying for the destruction of Israel. Traditionally, evangelical Christians are big supporters of Israel. Now I have no idea what some fringe group someplace may be doing. I assume that the Racist group up in Idaho who doesn’t like Jews or Blacks or just about anyone could be praying for bad things to happen. But those people are mistrustful of the rest of society and I think it is highly unlikely we would meet any of them in a college setting anywhere.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How about if I reply out of my genuine heartfelt belief, “Thanks, but I hope you get over the need for this imaginary friend soon.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, now you have gone too far. The Amway crack is simply disgusting. I am a Unitarian, and I am shaking with rage so much that it is hard to type. </p>

<p>I have NEVER heard anyone from the UUA or and individual Unitarian “pretending” that we are “a Christian church.” The fact is that contemporary UUism is NON-CREEDAL but sprang from Christian roots. The earliest American Unitarians considered themselves Christians in that they followed the teachings of Jesus, but they did not regard Jesus as divine. The Universalists believed in universal salvation, and held to a very demanding standard of good works according to the teachings of Jesus. (Of course, they were looked down upon by all of the right-thinking Christians for daring to say that Jesus’ message of love was universal and for not joining them in condemning all those people who were “wrong” to hell. Shocking!) </p>

<p>We share certain principles, but it is the responsibility of every individual UU to engage in a “free and responsible search for truth and meaning.” UUs look to all of the world’s great religions for inspiration, and to humanism and to nature. Some UUs consider themselves to be “UU Christians.” What they mean by that is up to them. It may mean that they find their greatest truth in the teachings of Jesus. It may mean that they actually think Jesus is divine. (Although this is less likely.) A UU may say that a person who is inspired by Christian teachings is welcome at a UU church, but they would NEVER say that UUs are Christians.</p>

<p>I’m waiting for your apology. I assume your vile smear was prompted by ignorance.</p>

<p>I think that we can steer this thread back to the question at hand by acknowledging the following:

  1. Colleges have unique cultural aspects.
  2. Regions of the United States, and of the world, have unique cultural aspects. Rather than making value judgements about those cultural aspects, we should respect and enjoy them. We should recognize that some regions have more variability than others, and that not all individuals in a region reflect any one particular outlook. We should recognize that subtle differences in styles of communication may challenge us in trying to understand each other.
  3. We should work against hate and violent behavior, wherever it exists. We should work toward equality and respect for all. We should not fear people who we perceive as “different”, but should work toward understanding their point of view.
  4. We all have our belief systems. We should respect the belief systems of others, unless they promote hate. We should learn more about our own belief systems, and those of others, in order to strive for better understanding and communication.
  5. We may not be aware that some things we say may offend others, especially when we believe them so strongly. We should try to see things from the point of view of others, as best we can. That can be quite difficult, as reflected in some comments on this thread, but we should keep trying.
  6. There is varying advice here as to whether students will have a good experience attending a college where the predominant culture is in contrast to that in which the student was raised. It may be that some students would do well in such an environment, and others would not. </p>

<p>Now, can we all be friends, agree to disagree on certain points, and have a constructive and respectful discussion that would be helpful?
I think that we can, and that this would be a great example for our kids as we launch them into a world where varying opinions exist!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Wrong again. The laws in our state, for example, specifically use the word “marriage” or “married” in something like 500 different places describing specific rights accruing to married couples. Apparently it would require changing each of those laws. </p>

<p>Personally, I’d be happy to so a search and replace on each of those laws. I support civil unions for everyone as far as legal status is concerned. I don’t think that government has a place in religious matters. I think that everyone ought to get a civil union if they wish to have those legal rights, and those who want one should go to their church and get a religious marriage too–but that would have no bearing on their civil status. There would be no reason why churches could not continue to set their own rules for marriage just as they do now. As Pizzagirl pointed out, no lawsuit has forced a Conservative rabbi to marry a Catholic and a Jew, and no lawsuit has forced a Catholic priest to marry divorced people.</p>

<p>Flvadad, post 161 is a non-sequitur, because prayer at the football game in a Catholic school isn’t comparable to prayer at the football game in a public school. But you knew that. And you know darn well the point I was making.</p>

<p>So now that we all see where the genuine hate is on this thread. Consolation, in our area, the UU “church” has a strong history of trying to pull Christian kids away from their Christian ties. Whether your church engages in that practice or not, I have no way of knowing. Not believing that Jesus is devine is a HUGE difference from Christianity. Leading kids into a UU church inplying that there is no difference is despicable. You are welcome to present “straight up” to my son that you believe in the goodness of JC, but not his divinity, but that is not what many UU churches do, like it or not. No apology is required. I gave my son the information he needs about the Church on his campus. If he does not believe that Jesus is devine, but simply wants to try to live a harmonious life, that is his choice. Christians believe, however, that we are all permanently flawed. We cannot go to heaven on our own. Period. And I think all you “good” people on this Board bear this out…particularly those of you who are “shaking” with anger.</p>

<p>To the gays on this thread, you might note that there was a gang attack on gays in NYC. Hate is everywhere. People in the South do not hate more than people in the North, believe it or not. Hate is universal.</p>

<p>debrockman, your ignorance continues to speak for itself. Hatred? No. Contempt? Yes.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry, can’t go there. I will not respect and enjoy the unique cultural aspects of parts of the world where women are treated as property. Where it’s normal for poor families to sell their daughters into sex slavery. Where women are forced to undergo genital mutilation. etc. etc.</p>

<p>Or, in this country: cultures where gay men feel they must marry women to appear “normal” but carry on with other men outside of marriage. Where “formerly gay” men start organizations to “cure” homosexuality, then run off with each other… Where people are allowed, even encouraged to carry concealed weapons into a bar… Where it’s culturally acceptable to discriminate against mixed-race marriages…</p>

<p>No one area of our country has a lock on tolerance or close-mindedness, but the OP is correct in considering what seem to be prevailing attitudes (political, religious or otherwise) as the student looks at colleges. That’s all a part of “fit.”</p>