Discrimination, multicultural, tolerance …these are PC words often hijacked by those who have a worldview and destructive agenda contrary to the Judeo-Christian worldview. Chrisitians have every right, and duty, to discern and discriminate against that which opposes reality and wellness, i.e., opposes natural moral law.
Not circular at all. It does require the use of right reason and an upright conscience.
No, that is a caricature of the natural law.
No, it would assume one understands what is implied by the phrase natural law.
So, why not have a robot instead of a human? Teaching is exclusively a matter of the subject being taught and the teacher has no influence in any way on the subject or the student?
Pretty much only two: is the teacher abusive, or is the teacher sexually interested in his or her students? Either of those are plenty of room for disqualification. Other than that, it’s all about competence and personability (and brilliance if possible).
Which is exactly what I was pointing out. If the ‘natural law’ is ‘I’m right because I said so’, what use is it?
If there is one single Natural Law which is held to apply to all people, it’s impossible to argue it. You can only argue whether or not it exists/applies.
Teaching is a matter of the competence of the teacher and his or her ability to interact well with students. Robots can do quite well at the first, but the second… well, they can’t take Q&A very well. Ever tried getting yourself psychoanalyzed by the Eliza program? Things haven’t changed much since then.
As Catholics we are not able to criticize and judge with wild abandon. When we see a transgender teacher in a school, our intention in raising a ruckus is to send a message that we don’t want our children to be desensitized to a sin this grave. As Christians, we are concerned first and foremost for the salvation of the world. When someone commits a sin against God and nature, our DUTY is to correct them lovingly and if they will not be corrected, to shun them as recommended by St. Paul. In this way we prevent ourselves and our children from seeing sinful lifestyles as normal.
What is a hangup? Is having less of such a thing mean dulling one’s conscience so they may do as they please?
No, that is false. Why not start by defining the terms before you claim they do not apply?
No, that is what relativism says. If we all agree there is no objective right and wrong then we have nothing to argue about. What is right for you is fine and what is right for me is fine? Nothing to debate. In the end it leads to rigidity and oppression.
Q&A makes my point. Teachers can emphasize certain things, deemphasize certain things, spin certain things, nuance certain things, ect.
no, it means I don’t particularly care to do as you please. I wasn’t being serious anyway, forget it
Why not? Give me your natural law and we’ll see.
I misspoke. I’d put it more as debating the validity of the ‘natural law’. If it is truly valid, then it is something ingrained in humanity itself, and all that entails…
so, uh… you agree with me there?
Guess not… Even if I accept that, however, I don’t see where this is an issue of character. It would seem to have made her a happier person overall – and potentially therefore a better, more likeable teacher. And like cocacj said, if she isn’t making a huge deal about it herself, what’s the problem? The ‘issue’ here is your moral disapproval of her, not her character. And I’m not saying you have to get over that at all, just that it’s not really too relevant to her ability to teach, and even (gasp!) to be a role model for others. Really, if there’s only one thing you disapprove of her for, she’s probably doing a lot better than a lot of people.
I would never expect anyone to do as I please. I would expect everyone to do what is right.no, it means I don’t particularly care to do as you please. I wasn’t being serious anyway, forget it
Please start with this:
It entails right reason and an upright conscience.
I agree that a teacher is more than simply presenting a certain topic. If there are no other variables then we would not be having this discussion.
Does this mean everyone in society should refrain from criticizing social policy recommendatins that are based on Church doctrine? is there to be no free discussion of such recommendations?As Catholics we are not able to criticize and judge with wild abandon. When we see a transgender teacher in a school, our intention in raising a ruckus is to send a message that we don’t want our children to be desensitized to a sin this grave. As Christians, we are concerned first and foremost for the salvation of the world. When someone commits a sin against God and nature, our DUTY is to correct them lovingly and if they will not be corrected, to shun them as recommended by St. Paul. In this way we prevent ourselves and our children from seeing sinful lifestyles as normal.
A child will, first and foremost, be distracted by a teacher who was a man on Friday and a woman on Monday. How is a student to focus with something like that before them? Secondly, if the teacher is indeed competent and kind, a child will have trouble understanding why a sex change operation is so grave a sin. It doesn’t keep you from being a nice person, so why should this action be judged wrong? Grade school children don’t typically have backgrounds in moral and natural law. And if your child’s instincts tell them there is something wrong with a transgendered teacher, it doesn’t matter how capable the teacher is, he/she will have trouble commanding the respect necessary to provide a learning environment.
As Christians, we judge actions, not people. Only God knows hearts. Only God knows the pain and confusion felt by people who undergo sex change operations and only He knows if they have turned from Him enough to end up in hell. However, when they attempt to gain acceptance of their lifestyle through our children, we have an obligation to not let that happen. You’ll note also, that this is happening in a school around children, not in an insurance company or accounting firm. THAT makes me suspicious that there is an agenda to target our kids with this perversion.
As to what critic is above criticism? The one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, baby.
Not if the Culture of Death has anything to say about it. They are only tolerant if it agrees with their position. Doublespeak at its finest
Thank you for that information. You are so right - GOD judged - GOD not man. We are told in the Bible NOT to judge others for the very simple reason we never see the whole picture and God does. To say we have the “obligation” to judge others makes no sense at all.
The judging referred to would be judging someone’s eternal destination…duh
well said
Dignity, check, human rights, check, basis for civil law… check, sure. It looks to me to be more of a social construct than a divinely mandated one that extends across all cultures really. And here’s where we fall down – you say ‘it must apply, for it comes from God’ and I say ‘why does it have to? I don’t see it’. I don’t dispute that a basic desire for rights is ingrained in all people – that’s just pride really, we’ve all got it.
And I don’t see any wrong in my reason, and my conscience is doing fine. Not going to fall for saying it’s all relative, but perhaps the bar is a little lower than absolute adherence to every single word published on ‘moral behavior’?
You are welcome.
Perhaps a little research is in order… you will find that one is based on the other…
Unfortunately, “Natural Law” is being used here as a stick to beat others? I’ll pass out the stones for the “Sinless” to start casting…!"
