Did I ever tell you the story about a guy named "Bob" I met on an airplane a few years back? (I realize your real name may not be Bob, but it's a good story anyway.)

I took my window seat and before long this guy sits next to me in the center seat (of three) and immediately starts talking to me. He talked right through the flight attendant safety briefing. I like conversation with new acquaintences maybe more than the average guy, but it was soon too much for me. I got out the magazine in the seat back and starting thumbing through it, hoping he'd get the message that I wasn't interested in continuing the discussion. (I don't recall specifically what he wanted to discuss. It was not heavy or opinionated - just small talk and LOTS of it.)

Finally we left the gate and my hopes turned to there being too much noise in flight for him to continue. Right before the pilot accelerated for take-off, the guy held out his hand to shake mine, saying:

Guy: Oh, I failed to introduce myself! My name's Bob! That's with one "O".

I swear I am not making this up.

Now for my question to you:

Your response to Hiker on Alph's thread regarding exposure at the church-school included this:

"seemingly secular"?????

Haven't we plowed this ground before?

Your implication is that "secular" folks are not capable of knowing right from wrong. I again find that offensive.

Remember, this is a Catholic church-school we're talking about. You know, the same one with all the secrecy? The same one with the problem with the Priests and the little boys? The same one who elects their leader in secrecy and then has him adopt an "alias?" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I'll take "secular" over that any day.

WAT
----------------
Let's be clear - exposure IS exploitation of shame.

Good story !

Yes we've covered this ground before. I was merely inferring that (as we have agreed before) a professedly religious institution may feel more corporate compulsion to support the 'holy' institution of a religious marriage rather than the secular objective of minimising everyone's pain.

No inference from me that religious is good and secular is bad. That really is a sensitivity you have there. I reread my stuff and I don't see any even inferred superiority there. The heads response seems to have been " well, just get on with it and make no fuss". I.e. does not seemingly profess a valuation of the institution of marriage in line with the doctrine the school aligns itself with ( i.e. the scriptures). He behaved in a 'secular' way. I don;t know what he said - but if he didn;t suppor tmarriage he was not working out the tenets of his schools profession.

Alph wants to save her marriage. The christian doctrine would value that institution over immediate alleviation of pain if a spouse so chooses ( like I did).

Were the school NOT a faith school I would not feel there would be as much potential benefit of exposing up the tree there. thre may be WONDERUL or BETTER pastoral care at non faith institutions but probably not such an averred institutional support for marriage.

Faith school-church aligned-should be an institutional support for marriage there that may not be in place in even a caring secular organisation (like my company for example)-natural constituency for effective exposure IMO.

Thats all mate.
Even if every christian was a hypocrite, the tenets of the faith protect the institution of marriage like no secular organisation I know. Even mainstream secular MC in the UK is not pro-marriage. Its pro-arbitration.

They're not ANTI M, but not institutionally pro M.

love your sig BTW <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Over sensitive? Maybe, but.........

"rather than the secular objective of minimising everyone's pain"

What does that mean? secular objective?

WAT

I have to agree with Bob. A corporation would be more likely to just brush things aside. [they often do] But a religious organization would be under great pressure to practice what they preach. On the other hand, a secular organization doesn't "preach" anything. If a religious org didn't take action, it could be ruinous to their reputation. So I fully understand what he means. WAT, ya know I love ya, but you always seem to overreact to these issues and start up an aggressive "call out" thread to challenge your target!

WAT

Do you agree that whether or not they are decent people any organization professing an alignment to the ideals of the Christian faith SHOULD support the institution of marriage ?

By inference then a secular organization may or may not have an institutional support for the institution of marriage. there is no value judgment in there.

A Mosque school can be expected to support halal food while a secular school may not. Why Am I not making this clear to you ? help me.

A faith school can be reasonably expected to uphold marriage wheile a secular school may not.

There was no absolute reference in my post. Relatively the schools head behaved in a secular manner IMO. Would you be happier if I had said " he behaved like a faith hyprocrite" instead ?

You are very very sensitive to this stuff WAT. You defend when no-one is being attacked. Why is that ?

OK, OK - maybe oversensitive I am - and I can be re-trained.

I do believe, however, that there frequently are inferences made on this forum, because many participants ascribe to having faith to be such a signifcant portion of their lives, that those without such faith by definition cannot be as "good." A couple of posters go beyond inference in this regard to the point of accusing me personally that because I have no "faith" that thus I just do what I want, whatever feels good, because I have no point of "reference" or no "standard."


I couldn't agree more that, for example, a Christian school ought to be expected to "practice what it preaches" and unabashedly uphold marriage. But the opposite should not be assumed - that a non-Christian school does not nor has no interest in doing so. I would argue that despite not having "institutional support" that a secular entity should also be expected to have values. There dern well better be value judgements lest anarchy ensue.

The halal food may be a good example to point out - it's not a "value" judgement, huh? It's not quite a "moral" in the generic sense of right and wrong. To the contrary, a Christian, Moslem, and secular school all should be expected to support right from wrong, honesty from dishonesty - and thus, react negatively to infidelity (unless for some crazy reason there's some faith acceptance of it).

I think we'd be more accurate if we didn't differentiate whatsoever between having faith or not. It clearly doesn't seem to guarantee anything regarding behavior. In the case at hand it does, however, guarantee embarrassment if advertised values are not upheld. The Catholic church went after the pedophiles only after being embarrassed. If your point is that a secular entity may not be as embarrassed, I agree - because it may not claim to be so "good" to begin with.

WAT

WAT, I know you are sensitive to the suggestion that a secularist does not have morals and I can understand why. You do have morals and everyone here knows that. In fact, even though I am a Christian and you are a secularist, one would be hard pressed to find any differences in our moral stances! We agree on almost everything!

That being said, you hit the nail on the head when you said that a Christian school should be expected to uphold certain standards, ie: Christian moral standards.

The same expectation cannot be safely made about a secular institution, though. Because, how could we possibly know their standards if there is no universal standard for secularists? There is no expectation, and more often than not, they do not recognize the same moral standards as would a Christian institution. And you know that's true, WAT. Sure, its a generalization, but its a very valid, accurate generalization.

And sure, there are churches that clearly fail to follow the standard, but that doesn't mean there isn't an expectation. If there wasn't a standard at all, then we wouldn't be sitting here talking about how they failed the standard in the first place. If there is no standard, there is nothing TO fail. But, the exception does not define the rule, nor does one man's failure to abide by the standard negate the standard.

I just do what I want, whatever feels good, because I have no point of "reference" or no "standard."

I have no desire to start another endless, pointless 'creationism' thread here, but I will take the opportunity to hopefully simplify what I think is the argument made by folks like FH.

I am a Christian and was raised in an ostensibly Christian country and culture. So, my recieved list of moral absolultes are driven by scripture. Ten commandments etc.

Even if I break every one of the ten commandments and every other rule in the Bible I know I have done wrong because my 'straight edge' for moral behaviour is extrenal to me and is absolute.

For a non christian, with no received 'list' of right & wrong, where do conceptions of right and wrong and morality come from ? How do you know whats 'right and wrong' without a template ?

OK for secularists who like me were raised in a historically Judeo-christian culture, they may have become infused with the mores of the host culture OR deliberately adopted a whole new set of mores from studies.

But what I don;t understand is why there is even a concept of 'morals' amognst existentialists. The selfish gene sure means you should fertillise every woman you can, kill every potential usurper etc etc. Yet secular moralists play a huge role in defining and policing right and wrong behaviour.

JUST LIKE with the 'halal' example, WAT I am not saying that a Christians behaviour or morals are better than your or anyone elses, just that they are absolutly and externally defined. A wayward Christian breaks known codexes, what 'codes' other than a personal one does a secularist break in order to 'sin' ?

The debate here is not who is the more moral but where do our morals derive from ?

Where are yours from WAT ?

Wait. Let me get my popcorn.

OK, all set. Proceed. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

~ Snow

*reaches in to Snow's popcorn pail and grabs a handful, sits back and waits*

Well, I guess a serious, intellectual discussion about one's deeply felt moral beliefs is another man's Jerry Springer show worthy of pop corn. Hope the peanut gallery is sufficiently entertained.

Some talk, others listen. The listeners like popcorn.

I bet WAT types with a cup on his desk sometimes. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

SS

I hear tell that WWF wrasslin is on tonight! Maybe we can watch Gorgeous George beat the brains outta someone! Anyone gotta BUD? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I can't believe you would watch that Mel,
Where do you live anyway?

SS

wanna wrassle?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

I'm runnin out of snappy replies, can I just eat popcorn?

SS

CHICKEN!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Now i'm wondering what WAT will do when he catches us messin up his thread. Maybe I'll hurry and change my name to Just Learning.

AS far as the rest, I heard that discression is the better part of valor.

Or in other words, if you know you're gonna get wupped, back out.

SS

don't worry, WAT's bark is worse than his bite, that yankeeboy doesn't scare me. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

I admit, you make me laugh.

Keep up the good work.

SS