No private religious school should get a penny of public money for any reason. If the Catholic Church wants to operate schools, it's up to them to pay for it, not the tax payers. No religious institution should be allowed to indoctrinate children at the public's expense.
Oh no! The RCC will be operating under a very, very slightly reduced income? How is Jesus going to afford all those ivory backscratchers? Pathetic. I hope they get sent back to pre-k themselves, maybe they could learn a few things like kindness and sharing.
Kindness? Catholics?! Anyone who ever suffered in Catholic school under the wimpled fiends called nuns could tell you that kindness just isn't part of their educational program.
I've said it many times: religion wants the RIGHT, indeed, they want a LICENSE, to discriminate. To make matters worse, in this case, they want public funding to bulwark that twisted position. They damned well shouldn't get it.
Education in the US is problematic enough as it is, without a state government spending public monies to support a bigoted organization. Were it up to me, ALL public-voucher-funded schools would be CUT OFF and focus put on improving the conditions of the existing public schools.
Benjamin Franklin had it right. If the religion is good, it should be able to sustain itself. If it isn't, it can fall of its own weight.
What is this “Natural Family” you speak of? Any qualification you want to make about rejecting an LGBT family from being natural can be applied to other families just as easily. “They didn’t birth the children.” What about adoptive families? Are they not welcome at your school too? “Only one parent is biologically related to the children.” Step children are already a thing, would a blended family (like the Brady Bunch or even his, mine, ours family) not be welcome?
What is so awful about having two of the same gender caring for children in a family unit? Full House had three father figures and no mother, but it’s okay because you don’t think of the guys having sex since they’re brothers. That sounds like a you problem not a society is bad problem.
Sadly, we're talking about people who are tied to their holy book and their dogma, beyond any chance of untying. Worse, they don't WANT to be untied from it. They love their chains and would probably not know what to do without them.
And I have zero problem turning my back on them, just after telling them to fuck off.
The non-awfulness is the point. I.e. they must forbid these families lest the kids from straight two-parent RCC families see that there's no real difference.
It's "gay flight"? If our kids hang around with their kids, they might become friends. The horror. We can't have that. So we must segregate you from us.
It's more they fear there kids might turn out LGBT. Remember these are people who believe gay is contagious and parents are coercing their children to be trans.
Nah I disagree. Maybe some of their parishoners think that, but I bet the folks in charge are more savvy. For them, it is absolutely about how regular community interaction with gay families would undermine their authority when they claim being gay is evil.
At least IMO. Though I guess it doesn't matter too much why they're doing it, just *that* they're doing it.
I always laughed at how 90% of Disney movies involving family have them parented by a widow or widower. There's a very funny book called "The Year of the Horse." Disney made it into a movie called "The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit." The father in the book was married, and there were some "complications" regarding his marriage (nothing actually happened, but the possibility was raised). For Disney - tadah! - he'a widower who falls in love with his daughter's riding instructor. The instructor in the book was a man, but of course, that was changed too.
Pre-1950s many women died in childbirth. 'Single dad looking for second wife' isn't just an easy romcom to write, it was reality for more families than today.
Modern conservatives seem to have forgotten this. Step/second spouse or blended families were pretty much the norm because of the untimely death of one parent or another (cancer and disease, accident and injury got everyone. But childbirth also got mom).
But hey, I guess they count it as healthy for the children if one parent is dead. It's when both parents are alive that single parents and blended families are considered a horrible liberal plot to destroy family values.
Straight sex too. There was a time when catholic church set which days sex was allowed. I am sure people followed it as much as DM's grandmother respected catholic church position about abortion.
A friend of mine is on vacation in Morocco, and he just emailed me the news that the Catholic bishop in Casablanca has been indicted. You'll never guess what for...or will you? 😉
Religious tourism (Lourdes, Fatima, Notre Dame before the fire, various places in North Africa and Middle East) is a thing too but I guess not so much in your country or Canada.
When I lived in Washington Heights, NYC, the tomb of Mother Cabrini, the first American to be canonized, was just a few blocks away. There was a constant stream of pious tourists going in and out, and I assume most of them left tips, er, I mean holy offerings.
France owns that building, not the Catholic church. And it absolutely should be preserved, restored and maintained. It was magnificent beyond my wildest expectations. The stained glass alone was more than worth the visit. (And believe me, you would appreciate the nude and nearly nude guys who sunbathe on the cathedral roof.)
I was there maybe 20 years ago. ND certainly was impressive, but there were some other churches/cathedrals I liked more. Chartres maybe? OK, quick check - Sainte-Chapelle.
No one gains that kind of wealth without stepping on a mass of people. And given the RCC's history they didn't just step on people, they stomped on them.
That and they also convinced wealthy and/or noble people to retire in monasteries with a "slight" fee of lands/buildings. It was especially popular under Late Empire (Gallo Roman), Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties.
Meh. Yet another diocese in California is filing for bankruptcy rather than pay out for sex abuse claims. Sigh. I mean, c'mon, Vatican, sell a few golden chalices. That should cover it.
Every time Donald Duck told his Uncle Scrooge, "You have heaps of money. Give me some!" Scrooge would reply, "I didn't get all this money by spending it on dopes like you"! Catholic Theology 101.
“By creating a program that provides “universal” funding for preschool programs, Colorado has cornered the market for preschool services.“
Same as elementary school and secondary school, why not preschool? Pretty soon they’ll be making the same claim for their private schools. Preschool should already be free across the board, it should be a part of the public school system. They’re just angry that what was once a product to be sold (at whatever profit can be found) is now a government program.
The taxpayers of Colorado shouldn’t be paying for their own discrimination and oppression.
It's also worth pointing out that high quality private schools and yes even religious private schools survive perfectly fine against the public option. The US is not in any danger of private schools going extinct. But sh*tty preschools who only survive on poor parents who can't afford better? Sayonara. Gladly.
The most telling part of this is how stuck in the mud these fools are when it comes to the separation of church and state. That was one of the most important things that the founders of this Republic realized (even as they were themselves stuck in a past that saw no problem with slavery and child labor), two things that are now considered anti-American.
The Catholics are mad because they won't be able to brainwash another generation of children as their religion continues on an unstoppable death spiral.
Once again, we have a private institution demanding that everyone dance to their tune. This time instead of insisting they should get taxpayer funding despite not participating in the tax system, they are insisting everyone else suffer because we pool our money for the good of all. This is simply another example of The Church trying to exert their will on everyone.
Upset because they can't discriminate against Trans and Gays. And yet finds no trouble accepting students from broken families including those who abort, abuse and exploit children for personal gain is the best example of Catholic hypocrisy ever displayed.
"This ban forces parents to choose between paying out of pocket for the cost of faith-based preschool or receiving a free preschool education at any other private school in Colorado."
Why, yes! Yes, it does. Either follow the rules, or pay for your special order.
I am going to make this comment really simple; no religious, none, zero, zip should receive American taxpayer's dollars for their school or any other function period.
Do they actually put uniforms on pre-k kids? Or is this just a way of saying they don't want girls to wear pants?
Either way, I hate to tell you this RCC, but if you are telling parents that their 3-year-olds need to adhere to a strict dress code to go to your child care, then the bill isn't the only reason your enrollment numbers are going down.
I went to Catholic school from pre-K through 12. Pre-K through 8 the boys and girls had uniforms. 9 through 12 the girls still had uniforms and the boys had to where dress shirt and pants, tie, and either a blazer or sweater between October and April, depending on how hot it was. The high school girls uniforms did have optional pants.
I confess I'm bewildered by this "defense" that if Trump really believed the election was stolen, it makes everything he did all right. If someone genuinely believes a bank has stolen their money, does that make it legal for them to rob it? If it has been repeatedly, emphatically demonstrated that there has been no such theft by the bank but they still believe it anyway, does that make it all right for them to commit the robbery? Oh, that's right, "sincerely held beliefs" justify anything in the christofascist universe, anything at all.
No private religious school should get a penny of public money for any reason. If the Catholic Church wants to operate schools, it's up to them to pay for it, not the tax payers. No religious institution should be allowed to indoctrinate children at the public's expense.
Oh no! The RCC will be operating under a very, very slightly reduced income? How is Jesus going to afford all those ivory backscratchers? Pathetic. I hope they get sent back to pre-k themselves, maybe they could learn a few things like kindness and sharing.
Kindness? Catholics?! Anyone who ever suffered in Catholic school under the wimpled fiends called nuns could tell you that kindness just isn't part of their educational program.
I meant at a real school, not a Christian one. ;)
Truer words were never spoken.
I've said it many times: religion wants the RIGHT, indeed, they want a LICENSE, to discriminate. To make matters worse, in this case, they want public funding to bulwark that twisted position. They damned well shouldn't get it.
Education in the US is problematic enough as it is, without a state government spending public monies to support a bigoted organization. Were it up to me, ALL public-voucher-funded schools would be CUT OFF and focus put on improving the conditions of the existing public schools.
Benjamin Franklin had it right. If the religion is good, it should be able to sustain itself. If it isn't, it can fall of its own weight.
*reads claim*'
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
What is this “Natural Family” you speak of? Any qualification you want to make about rejecting an LGBT family from being natural can be applied to other families just as easily. “They didn’t birth the children.” What about adoptive families? Are they not welcome at your school too? “Only one parent is biologically related to the children.” Step children are already a thing, would a blended family (like the Brady Bunch or even his, mine, ours family) not be welcome?
What is so awful about having two of the same gender caring for children in a family unit? Full House had three father figures and no mother, but it’s okay because you don’t think of the guys having sex since they’re brothers. That sounds like a you problem not a society is bad problem.
Sadly, we're talking about people who are tied to their holy book and their dogma, beyond any chance of untying. Worse, they don't WANT to be untied from it. They love their chains and would probably not know what to do without them.
And I have zero problem turning my back on them, just after telling them to fuck off.
𝑊ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑠𝑜 𝑎𝑤𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑𝑟𝑒𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑓𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡?
The non-awfulness is the point. I.e. they must forbid these families lest the kids from straight two-parent RCC families see that there's no real difference.
It's "gay flight"? If our kids hang around with their kids, they might become friends. The horror. We can't have that. So we must segregate you from us.
It's more they fear there kids might turn out LGBT. Remember these are people who believe gay is contagious and parents are coercing their children to be trans.
Nah I disagree. Maybe some of their parishoners think that, but I bet the folks in charge are more savvy. For them, it is absolutely about how regular community interaction with gay families would undermine their authority when they claim being gay is evil.
At least IMO. Though I guess it doesn't matter too much why they're doing it, just *that* they're doing it.
Well, I can certainly agree with the last sentence.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d56736712cdc72966bb4c206b5ee385908e63ae24e255d27b58bd60aba4fa32e.jpg
Every time I see that meme, I can't help but think there is a spoiled lap dog missing.
Or a smirking cat.
We must never expose our children to this monstrousness!
Why do supposedly celibate priests feel they get to define anybody's family?
It's like seeking marital advice from a lifelong bachelor.
Why blame the child for any of that, even it there was something wrong with it.
We can’t be giving even an implied approval of this lifestyle. /s
Agreed!
Sins of the father until the 7th generation or something.
Just because we g-g-get around.
Not tryin' to cause a big sensation. Just talkin' 'bout my g-g-g-generation.
3rd and 4th generation, according to Exodus. Still abominable.
Their explanation for the existence of St. Jude CRH, I guess.
Edit: It takes human doctors and medical science to save kids with cancer. God apparently is okay with it or can't be bothered.
A deity that gives children cancer (or allows it to run riot in a child's body) is a monster.
https://i.imgur.com/4n6o4XE.jpeg
I always laughed at how 90% of Disney movies involving family have them parented by a widow or widower. There's a very funny book called "The Year of the Horse." Disney made it into a movie called "The Horse in the Grey Flannel Suit." The father in the book was married, and there were some "complications" regarding his marriage (nothing actually happened, but the possibility was raised). For Disney - tadah! - he'a widower who falls in love with his daughter's riding instructor. The instructor in the book was a man, but of course, that was changed too.
Pre-1950s many women died in childbirth. 'Single dad looking for second wife' isn't just an easy romcom to write, it was reality for more families than today.
Modern conservatives seem to have forgotten this. Step/second spouse or blended families were pretty much the norm because of the untimely death of one parent or another (cancer and disease, accident and injury got everyone. But childbirth also got mom).
But hey, I guess they count it as healthy for the children if one parent is dead. It's when both parents are alive that single parents and blended families are considered a horrible liberal plot to destroy family values.
You've heard of the Beatitudes, well here are the Beat-you-up-itudes, much more central to modern Christianity:
Cursed are the gays, for the Bible says it's okay to kill them. And besides, gay sex is icky.
Cursed are the trans and all non-binaries, for we just can't wrap our little minds around it.
Cursed are the atheists, for their non-belief in the afterlife scares us.
Cursed are the Muslims, for they're all terrorists.
Cursed are all the other religions, for they cut into our market.
Cursed are the poor, for they're all welfare takers, and seeing them makes us uncomfortable.
Cursed are the victims of gun violence, for they embarrass us for our love of guns.
Cursed are the liberals, for they want to uplift and respect all the above groups that we hate.
"And besides, gay sex is icky."
And just thinking about it makes them all tingly!
Especially between their knees!
And they spend more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do.
Straight sex too. There was a time when catholic church set which days sex was allowed. I am sure people followed it as much as DM's grandmother respected catholic church position about abortion.
The RCC is currently worth $30 billion (US Dollars). Are they truly pleading poverty?
Prada slippers don't grow on trees.
Bullet proof cars don't either since no one trusts a St. Heston medal to stop a bullet.
And all those self-inflicted gunshot wounds (lawsuits) against them must be a constant drain on their finances.
We can hope!
A friend of mine is on vacation in Morocco, and he just emailed me the news that the Catholic bishop in Casablanca has been indicted. You'll never guess what for...or will you? 😉
Gambling?
I would be shocked if it was gambling.
Let me take a shot at it: Molestation or stealing from the Church.
We know which one the RCC actually hates.
With all the art and properties it own, this number seems quite low. They also dab in craft and paying stays in monasteries/convents.
That number might just be domestic. The worldwide take is bound to be higher.
Religious tourism (Lourdes, Fatima, Notre Dame before the fire, various places in North Africa and Middle East) is a thing too but I guess not so much in your country or Canada.
Graceland. : )
I've been there plus his birthplace in Tupelo, Mississippi.
Well, there is some religious tourism here if you count Ken Ham's boat and 'museum' and other religious theme parks. :)
I will repost this one and a couple of others next monthly post about ark disaster
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/italy/rome/articles/Romes-Sistine-Chapel-50-fascinating-facts/
Says I have to subscribe to read.
Ah yes, the Sistine Chapel. Painted by a gay man. Oh, the irony.
Paywalled.
The Polish American Catholics love this one: https://czestochowa.us/
When I lived in Washington Heights, NYC, the tomb of Mother Cabrini, the first American to be canonized, was just a few blocks away. There was a constant stream of pious tourists going in and out, and I assume most of them left tips, er, I mean holy offerings.
France owns that building, not the Catholic church. And it absolutely should be preserved, restored and maintained. It was magnificent beyond my wildest expectations. The stained glass alone was more than worth the visit. (And believe me, you would appreciate the nude and nearly nude guys who sunbathe on the cathedral roof.)
I was there maybe 20 years ago. ND certainly was impressive, but there were some other churches/cathedrals I liked more. Chartres maybe? OK, quick check - Sainte-Chapelle.
Are you willing to compensate the revenue loss for my country ? Notre Dame doesn't belong to the catholic church.
Here's an article that says $73B, but it also says "Tallying that immense wealth is pretty much impossible, according to experts.".
https://www.marketplace.org/2023/02/10/how-much-money-does-catholic-church-have/
No one gains that kind of wealth without stepping on a mass of people. And given the RCC's history they didn't just step on people, they stomped on them.
That and they also convinced wealthy and/or noble people to retire in monasteries with a "slight" fee of lands/buildings. It was especially popular under Late Empire (Gallo Roman), Merovingian and Carolingian dynasties.
Meh. Yet another diocese in California is filing for bankruptcy rather than pay out for sex abuse claims. Sigh. I mean, c'mon, Vatican, sell a few golden chalices. That should cover it.
Every time Donald Duck told his Uncle Scrooge, "You have heaps of money. Give me some!" Scrooge would reply, "I didn't get all this money by spending it on dopes like you"! Catholic Theology 101.
“By creating a program that provides “universal” funding for preschool programs, Colorado has cornered the market for preschool services.“
Same as elementary school and secondary school, why not preschool? Pretty soon they’ll be making the same claim for their private schools. Preschool should already be free across the board, it should be a part of the public school system. They’re just angry that what was once a product to be sold (at whatever profit can be found) is now a government program.
The taxpayers of Colorado shouldn’t be paying for their own discrimination and oppression.
It's also worth pointing out that high quality private schools and yes even religious private schools survive perfectly fine against the public option. The US is not in any danger of private schools going extinct. But sh*tty preschools who only survive on poor parents who can't afford better? Sayonara. Gladly.
Want taxpayer dollars, RCC? Then pay your taxes like your own bible tells you to.
Oh, and by the way? Stop oppressing women, stop oppressing LGBTQs and stop molesting children.
Why must you persecute them? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah! /s
The most telling part of this is how stuck in the mud these fools are when it comes to the separation of church and state. That was one of the most important things that the founders of this Republic realized (even as they were themselves stuck in a past that saw no problem with slavery and child labor), two things that are now considered anti-American.
The Catholics are mad because they won't be able to brainwash another generation of children as their religion continues on an unstoppable death spiral.
Once again, we have a private institution demanding that everyone dance to their tune. This time instead of insisting they should get taxpayer funding despite not participating in the tax system, they are insisting everyone else suffer because we pool our money for the good of all. This is simply another example of The Church trying to exert their will on everyone.
Upset because they can't discriminate against Trans and Gays. And yet finds no trouble accepting students from broken families including those who abort, abuse and exploit children for personal gain is the best example of Catholic hypocrisy ever displayed.
"This ban forces parents to choose between paying out of pocket for the cost of faith-based preschool or receiving a free preschool education at any other private school in Colorado."
Why, yes! Yes, it does. Either follow the rules, or pay for your special order.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. You atheists and your satanic reliance on facts and common sense.
Exasperating, I know!
I am going to make this comment really simple; no religious, none, zero, zip should receive American taxpayer's dollars for their school or any other function period.
Including tax exemption.
Once again: To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin? Any religion that has its hands out to the government for financial help is a bad religion.
The inescapable logic of Epicurus.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑤𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 “𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥’𝑠 𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚”
Da frak?
Do they actually put uniforms on pre-k kids? Or is this just a way of saying they don't want girls to wear pants?
Either way, I hate to tell you this RCC, but if you are telling parents that their 3-year-olds need to adhere to a strict dress code to go to your child care, then the bill isn't the only reason your enrollment numbers are going down.
We didn't have pre-K but the catholic school I went to had uniforms K-8. I think most of them do.
I went to Catholic school from pre-K through 12. Pre-K through 8 the boys and girls had uniforms. 9 through 12 the girls still had uniforms and the boys had to where dress shirt and pants, tie, and either a blazer or sweater between October and April, depending on how hot it was. The high school girls uniforms did have optional pants.
"The high school girls uniforms did have optional pants."
Was the other option...no pants?
Catholics do like big families.
OT: Oh good, now it's scientific proof!
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rudy-giuliani-says-he-has-scientific-proof-of-election-fraud-to-exonerate-him/ar-AA1fymNJ
I confess I'm bewildered by this "defense" that if Trump really believed the election was stolen, it makes everything he did all right. If someone genuinely believes a bank has stolen their money, does that make it legal for them to rob it? If it has been repeatedly, emphatically demonstrated that there has been no such theft by the bank but they still believe it anyway, does that make it all right for them to commit the robbery? Oh, that's right, "sincerely held beliefs" justify anything in the christofascist universe, anything at all.
The dog ate my election is a better defense.
Maybe he's going to go with an insanity defense.
He is certainly laying the groundwork.
Rudy wouldn't know what scientific proof is if it dripped off his head.
There's so much crud dripping off his head already, would there be room for any more?
I'd love to know where all that "proof" was when he was losing all those court cases! 😝
Safely ensconced in his rectum, of course... we all know that's where he pulled it from, after all.
Would it be considered abuse if I adopted a dog, named her Scientific Evidence and sent her to bite ghouliani's ass ?
Abuse of the dog, yes.🐩 : )
Mmmhh, I made a good job with 2 traumatised dogs, I guess I can do it again 🤔
You know what, not even gonna click on the link. I've been disappointed too often. 😁
Scientific proof. I do not think that means what he thinks it means.
I'm guessing it comes from Pillow Guy.
Mike, put down the crack pipe already.
Sure he will! He needs both hands to do lines off the coffee table.
It's probably the same as baby donnies irrefutable proof.
https://www.gocomics.com/claybennett/2023/08/20
Trump IS an 8 Ball.