State-Funded Christian School Rejects Three-Year-Old for Having Gay Parents July 29, 2012

State-Funded Christian School Rejects Three-Year-Old for Having Gay Parents

By Hemant Mehta
July 29, 2012

In true Christian fashion, Hope Christian School in Albuquerque, New Mexico just rejected a three-year-old from its preschool rosters because he has two fathers:

Action 7 News got a copy of the letter that Hope Christian School sent to the family.

It says in part: “Same gender couples are inconsistent with scriptural lifestyle and biblical teachings,” and “Home life doesn’t reflect the school’s belief of what a biblical family lifestyle is.”

Ok, ok, we’re used to that kind of behavior from deeply religious people. Can’t even bother to have a face-to-face meeting with the parents because they worry they will catch The Gay. Punish the three-year-old for something he had nothing to do with… None of this is news. (Though I’d love to know why the boy’s parents wanted to enroll him in a school like that in the first place…)

But here’s the part that should anger everybody:

The school will receive more than $60,000 in federal tax dollars this school year.

How that happens, I don’t know. The money is supposed to be used for “professional development,” but why is federal money going to any discriminatory organization, religious or not? If Christians want to brainwash children, they should at least do it on their own dime.

One local pastor says the child was rejected because the parents, knowing he would get rejected, used him as a pawn to advance the “gay agenda.”

But a commenter was quick to reject that theory:

Right on. Can’t wait for the administration to kick out every child whose parents are divorced.

(Thanks to @iUseRedstone for the link)

Previous Post
Catherine Dunphy Named New Executive Director of the Clergy Project
Next Post
Texas State Representative: Everyone's Cool with Reading Bible Verses in the Classroom, Right?
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • martin

    The Bible also says to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, meaning don’t take tax money unless you use it as the law dictates which means no discrimination.

  • Corey

    when will gays realize that anything to do with religion hates them, unless it is a progressive or open like uu’s or divercity gay catholics in boston. im bothered that so many folks dont realize just how mean conservatives and conservative christians can be, there is a whole history of their evils right here and across the globe, i assume most compare our fundies to say iran, so they can say:  “see they arent as bad as those in iran”, but if let to, they would. [ps im gay]

  • Aaron Scoggin

    Well let’s see.. They take public money… Meaning that they must submit to public law.. Law states that you cannot discriminate based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation.. Hmmm..

    I’m no lawyer, but it looks like a pretty  easy lawsuit to win.

  • Isilzha

    I’m bothered by that too.  It’s especially worrisome to me that so many atheists see churches as benign or even positive influences in society.  I don’t understand this at all since we’ve seen SO much evidence to the contrary. 

  • Oregon Catholic

    “The school will receive more than $60,000 in federal tax dollars this school year. How that happens, I don’t know.”

    Why don’t you do your homework and find out why.

  • Isilzha

    I really hope there’s some sort of investigation and the school is forced to repay all the public money (plus a penalty) it scammed from the government.

  • ruth

    There are commenters to the article who do this weird Christian thing of saying how loving they are and how the are not judging others, but then go on to say that homosexuality is a sin.  Why don’t they realize that this is judging?  For example, look at this comment:

     ” it clearly says in the bible homosexuality is a sin. i (a christian) place no judgement on you or your lifestyle, but i do believe it is a sin. i love everyone equally no matter what. for you do condemn hop for their actions seems a bit judgmental. all they are doing is standing up for what they believe in. how can you call yourself a christian when you go against a core value. knowing something is a sin and doing it anyways is the ultimate sin. if you dont like the belief system at a christian school then dont send your kids there. it is ridiculous to ask hope (or any religion for that matter) to change their values to accommodate yours.

  • tehgey

    @ Hemant:

    This is a serious question: are you gay or bisexual? 

    I mean there has to be some type of personal motivation for your stridency on gay rights issues, especially since you claim to run a blog about atheism (apparently gay rights and lack of belief in gods are tantamount in your mind).

  • Isilzha

    So, we’re just suppose to ignore the fact that people use religion to try to deny certain people equal rights?

    I say it’s a VERY relevant topic.  Why don’t you go back to Faux News if this makes you so unhappy??

  • I’m straight.

    Religion is the reason gay people don’t have equal rights. Even young religious people understand that. The more we can point out how these rights are being impeded by religious groups, the more reason people will have to leave their faith, I hope.

  • Every day American Christians, both Protestant and Catholic are steadily redefining their Christianity as anti-gay rather than pro-Jesus.  Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are becoming different from the mainstream only in their tactics, rather than in their focus.

    Keep it up. You’re committing slow motion suicide. Young people are growing sick and tired of your hate cult.

  • newavocation

    As a fund raising strategy religious organizations need a minority group they can ostracize and claim that they are a threat.  I guess historically they can also pick fights with other larger religious organizations but they have more to risk and lose.  Just like the mob it’s all about control and dollars.

  • 3lemenope


    Why don’t they realize that this is judging? 

    Because they’ve externalized the process. From their perspective (as that comment you quoted indicates clearly), they don’t believe they are being judgmental, because they believe the judging has already been done by their God. They are just doing their duty in informing people who have gone astray. 

    The problem, if I may be so bold, is that the religion has moral rules which followers are enjoined to try to follow–and most importantly, help each other to follow–but contained within those moral rules is an injunction against judgment. So, the Christian moral system comes with an embedded puzzle: How do you help other people to be moral unless you can indicate how they are being immoral, but how can you indicate that a person is immoral without being immoral oneself? Many Christian ethical thinkers have come to the conclusion that the best way is simply to be a moral exemplar and hope that one’s example leads others to emulate the person’s demonstrated moral character. 

    But that’s really difficult. So, the shortcut is usually to pull a psychological trick where you judge without judging by convincing oneself that the judgment has already been done by God and you’re just delivering the bad news.

  • Patterrssonn

    Apparently gay rights and atheism and lack of belief in gods are mutually exclusive in your mind.

  • @ tehgey:

    Whether you are serious or not, this is a ridiculous question.  I’m not black, but I believe African Americans should have equal rights.  I’m not female, but I believe women deserve equal rights.  I’m not gay, but I believe homosexuals should have equal rights.  Why should we only care about our own social/ethnic/gender group?  This is where atheism and humanism converge: when one group is discriminated against, its to the detriment of all humanity. 

  • Patterrssonn

    Corruption and vote buying are the usual reasons.

  • “Why don’t you do your homework and find out why. ”

    My guess is that Hemant, or somebody else, will do just that. 

    Do *you* think it’s constitutionally sound for a school like this to receive federal money, then turn around and discriminate? I sure as hell don’t. 

  • Christianity has gotten passive-aggressive behavior down to a science (well… if they actually believed in science, that is).

  • Oregon Catholic

    It doesn’t sound typical but since I don’t know why they are receiving the money I can’t come to a conclusion, unlike some others…

  • 3lemenope

    True that, and it isn’t restricted to Christianity. Most religions set very lofty (nigh unachievable) goals for personal behavior and social order. It would be one thing if those religions actually provided effective ethical and psychological tools to achieve those goals, but they don’t, and further the goals themselves are daunting. Saddling people with impossible personal goals encourages followers of those religions to turn their failures outwards towards others and lash out, which they can’t do overtly for fear of the charge of hypocrisy, so becomes very nastily passive-aggressive.

  • Perhaps we both agree that this is something that should be looked into, since there is clearly a constitutional concern here.

  •  This is a serious question. Are you obtuse or just a bigot?  I mean there has to be some type of personal deficiency for you to think a person has to belong to a particular minority group in order to care about their oppression, and to want to do something about it. 

  •  Actually I don’t understand too why should atheist care about gay rights? In my experience, gays don’t care about the atheists’ tight, so why should we bother about theirs. I remember that some time ago a “reporter” said many derrogatory comments about gays and non-religious people, and all the outrage was about whay he said about gays, only a small group complained about both.

    So my opinion is that homosexuals should fight for their rightd on their (althought they find it a lot easier), and atheist should only care about atheists’ rights. At least until homosexuals stopped being so self centered and started to help another discriminated groups.

  • unclemike

     In my experience a large number of gays are atheist. Or black. Or women.  There is no room for exclusionary comments among any of us.

  •  So because in *one* instance some gay people didn’t express as much concern for atheists as they did for gay people you think atheists shouldn’t care about gay people.  M’kay. 

  • Heidi

     I’m straight, too, Hemant, and I appreciate your coverage of gay rights issues. Thank you for helping us all stand together.

  • amycas

     I don’t think tehgey was trying to ask a ridiculous question or come off as malicious, but I have seen this line of thinking before. My brother-in-law once, in all seriousness, asked me why we should care when gay teenagers kill themselves. It was a very hateful question asked completely sincerely; he honestly didn’t seem to feel any empathy for the teenagers who committed suicide or for their family/friends.

  • That’s why we also have so many feminism posts on an atheist blog.  Hemant is a woman!

  • That seems extremely unlikely for the same reason there were no white abolitionists in the 19th century, or whites in the civil rights movement in the 20th.  The idea of a straight guy with “strident” opinions on gay rights is as unlikely as a man who voted for suffrage for women.

    But at least Tehgay is staying focused on the real issue in this case of a school that takes public money discriminating against children of gay parents (Hemant Mehta’s love life) and not getting distracted by red herrings like religious schools that accept public funds and discriminate against children of gay parents.  Nice try, Gay Agenda, but Tehgay didn’t take the bait.

  • Aaron Scoggin

    Gay rights hasn’t been effected yet because of other’s religious beliefs. We believe that one religion shouldn’t dictate how the rest of us live.

  • Aaron Scoggin

    For me, I’m not solely an atheist. I will stand up for people who I feel have been wronged, and that’s just my personal point of view. Obviously, other people who happen to be atheists, care more about just their atheism. For example, if an elected official were to try to make a law that bans churches and prayer, I would be against that, despite being an atheist.

    It just goes beyond atheism itself. Because really, what is atheism? You tell me that.

  • Deven Kale

    In all serious, the idea of atheists fighting for the rights of homosexuals or any other minority shouldn’t be too surprising if you really think about it. Atheists are a minority themselves, quite often threatened and persecuted just like many others. Basically the reason many atheists care for the rights of other minorities is because we can empathize with them pretty easily.

  • Luther

    My sympathy is mostly with the three year old. Hopefully he will be provided with a non-religious environment for pre-school. Hopefully his parents will learn from this and understand the bad that religion does.

    I also wish that the other students had a better environment and that the taxpayers stopped funding such.

  • Kodie

      Why are we atheists? We don’t believe in god or find credible evidence
    for god. But really because there are theists. Without theism, would I
    need to define myself as an atheist?

    Theists believe in god, but is that all they do? No. Who cares. How much could be said about that? They frame their
    social behaviors in their theism, their belief in something imaginary,
    are hateful, obnoxious, and dangerous. We have to live in this world
    with them, using their theism to make laws and discriminate against
    people – US – from words written in a book thousands of years ago, to
    please this god who doesn’t exist. It’s irrational, and atheists point
    this out, bring it up, discuss it, choose not to ignore it, and educate people the basis does not lie in reason. Why should we not discuss it everywhere and in everything that religion does to poison our society? It’s super of you to think homosexuals should just take care of their own thing and if there’s religious opposition to their rights and issues, that’s on them and not have anything to do with atheists? Some of whom are gay, most of whom are oppressed in other ways than mere theistic privilege but who they can marry and how much access they have to birth control, etc.; these issues affect all of us.

  • SuperAsianSalsero

    Herman. I love your blog bro. I read it daily. Please excuse my French,but DAMN!!! I get so angry at times reading $h!t like this. I often think of the movie Idiocracy when I read your blog because of the outrageousness and backwardness. 

  • I was going to say because I’m a human being, but then I care about the rights of (other)animals and plants as well.

    Call me a DNAist.

  • Ibis3

    Haven’t I read posts on this blog about the problem of finding secular child care in many places in the US? It’s possible that there were no other preschools in the area, or that this preschool was subsidized to a point that made it the most affordable for the couple.

  • Oregon Catholic

     Agreed, but I’m not going to do Mr. Mehta’s homework for him. If you don’t see an explanation from him of why the school received the money, it may be because it wouldn’t support the ire he was trying to raise.
    I’m waiting to see if he has been intellectually honest.

  • It’s not a huge mystery.

    From the linked article:

    The school will receive more than $60,000 in federal tax dollars this school year. That money will be used for educator professional development, according to the state’s Public Education Department.

    Assuming KOAT did their homework.

    And from some random person in the comments: (David McMullan)

    and as far as the money goes… it’s a Title II funds which are available to private institutions with no strings attached. Private school parents are big tax payers therefore are untitled to use tax $ to enhance their children’s education. 60k for over a thousand in enrollment isn’t much anyway

    And according to http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleIIA/Program/default.aspx

    Private schools may access Title II Part A funds for professional development that meets the needs of their teachers. Planning for this professional development occurs through a consultation process between private school and school district personnel before the school district submits its Title II Part A application on iGrants. School districts will find a formula on iGrants which calculates the amount of funding needed to reserve for “equitable services” for private school professional development activities. 

    So, the school can get tax dollars to improve teacher quality.

    My only question would be what kind of professional development is eligible.  Can a private school use the funds to send teachers to workshops on how to pray away teh gay?

  • Professional development activities may include: •  Improving the knowledge of teachers, principals, and other educational personnel in: ◊  One or more of the core academic subjects, and ◊  Effective instructional teaching strategies, methods, and skills. •  Training in integrating technology effectively into curricula and instruction. •  Training in how to teach students with different needs, including students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, and gifted and talented students. •  Training in methods of improving student behavior, identifying early and appropriate interventions, and involving parents more effectively in their children’s education. •  Leadership development and management training to improve the quality of principals and superintendents. •  Training in the use of data and assessments to improve instruction and student outcomes. Reminder: Title II Part A funds must never be paid directly to the private school. For detailed information, please refer to Section G of the Title II Part A Non-Regulatory Guidance http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.doc

    http://www.k12.wa.us/TitleIIA/Program/pubdocs/PrivateSchoolsFlyerFY09.pdf 

  • Slade

    Are you defending this school’s decision?  

    Just looking for some intellectual honesty here, dontcha know…

  • This has happened several times before, but it’s usually Catholic schools for some reason.

    http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/14/children-of-gay-parents-another-student-booted-from-catholic-sc

    I honestly don’t care if private Christian schools want to discriminate against children of gay parents, but I’m outraged that this school (or any other religious school) is getting money from the government. Public money shouldn’t be going to schools that indoctrinate their students with religious beliefs, either benign ones like “Jesus loves all children” or hostile ones like “God doesn’t like people having two daddies.”

  • What about if it’s to provide faculty anti-bullying training?  (And not TN style “don’t say ‘gay'” style bullying prevention)?

  • I really think it should be on their own dime. The more money Hope Christian School saves on faculty training, the more it can devote to indoctrinating students. I have no issue with the government providing free anti-bullying seminars or something similar, but public money shouldn’t be going to religious schools for any reason. They should be in charge of their own training and development. I don’t think the government should be in the business of trying to make sure they succeed. Let them succeed or fail on their own.

  • Rwlawoffice

    So what if the child was accepted and the school taught him that homosexuality was a sin and that the Bible and the Catholic church taught that marriage was between a man and a woman. Would the fathers have been okay with that? Or as one of the commentators on the article stated, they planned to object and cause an issue with the curriculum?   None of us were in those meetings or talked with those involved, so we really can’t say what went on, but I do question why they would knowingly place their child in a school where they had to know the curriculum was against their own beliefs. 

    As for the Title II dollars, it appears that this comes with no strings attached, so this money can go to all private schools. Even an atheist school that taught that God doesn’t exist I suppose could get this money and a Christian could not complain about it. If indeed this money is “no strings attached” as Rich Wilson has indicated then it would appear that it just that. To say that unless you accept the same sex marriage beliefs you don’t get the money, you are changing the rules and getting Government involved in religion- something that I know you want to avoid. If you start to add the strings you want, than simply take away the money from all private schools, including the secular ones that receive the funds.

  • Well, there are strings attached, but it’s based on the usage of the money, not the institution in general.  Any school can apply, but from what I’ve read, I think it’s safe to say that the money has to be used for secular purposes.  Which is where I think I perhaps disagree with Anna.  She’s given me pause, but there are many other cases where religious organizations get federal money for secular charity work.

    I do want to point out that a secular school is not the same thing as an atheist school.  ALL public schools are (supposed to be) secular.  I’m not aware of any private atheist schools, but if there are, then obviously they should have the same funding restrictions as any religious private school.

    To say that unless you accept the same sex marriage beliefs you don’t get the money, you are changing the rules and getting Government involved in religion

    I think see where you’re coming from, but where we’re going to disagree is on at what level can your discrimination be protected by your faith.  We’ve seen in the last few days where a church didn’t have to marry a black couple.  And as much as everyone is outraged, I didn’t notice anyone saying they should be legally required to.

    But what if a school was getting Title II funds on the one hand, and on the other teaching that black people are inferior and interracial marriage is an abomination?  Even if those Title II funds were for a secular purpose, I’d really have a hard time with a school like that getting any money.  Which is why Anna’s comment is giving me pause.  And she is someone who’s family has been the target of and hurt by that kind of ‘teaching’.  She has a point I can’t dismiss.

  • Oregon Catholic

     Well as Rich has shown there is nothing constitutionally out of order here. An atheist school who refused to take kids with theist parents would be just as eligible apparently.

    So who is being intellectually dishonest – me for (correctly) questioning if we had the whole story or Mr. Mehta for posting a story to stir up the ire of his troops without any justification?

  • Rwlawoffice

     I see your point and you are correct, the strings are tied to how the money can be used, not to the beliefs of the school.  That is where they should stay.

    As for the idea that there is a point where what is alleged to be discrimination interferes with religious teaching and thus federal funds can be tied to those beliefs, the problem of course becomes what is determined to be discrimination or for that matter, what agenda is being championed at the time so that the funds can be held. For example, you may recall years ago when the Federal government tied federal highway funds to a lowering of the speed limit to 55 MPH.

    In the event there is a change in the government and these funds are tied to the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman and any school that teaches otherwise would not receive them, there would be an outcry from the left. It doesn’t seem wrong to hold up those funds for those that support same sex marriage, but if the situation was reversed, it would not seem so fair and just.

    There are some religious or conservative schools that simply don’t accept federal funds.  They just choose to avoid the possibility that what they teach can be dictated by the acceptance of the funds.

  • We all like to pretend that we’re Voltaire and (although he didn’t actually say it) would defend those we disagree with.  It’s not so easy when we’re faced with that actual disagreement.  This is one of those times personally where I’m trying to see it from the other side, but for me rejecting a child for having two dads is equivalent to rejecting a child for having parents with different skin color.  Which means I’m essentially defending not only the right of a school to reject kids with differently colored parents, but their right to receive federal funds, so long as they aren’t related to their racism.

    Tough tough pill.

  • So I did a little digging around, and it looks like this family dodged a bullet. Hope Christian seems to be your typical evangelical fundamentalist school, the kind that teaches creationism, revisionist history, and a bunch of other nonsense.

    Here’s their Statement of Faith:

    We believe that the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, was given by inspiration of God, and is our only rule in matters of faith and practice. We believe in Creation, not evolution; that man was created by the direct act of God and in the image of God. We believe that Adam and Eve, in yielding to the temptation of Satan, became fallen creatures. We believe that all men are born in sin. We believe in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth and the Diety of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We believe in His vicarious and substitutional Atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding of His blood on the Cross. We believe in the resurrection of His body from the tomb, His ascension into Heaven and that He is now our Advocate. We believe that He is personally coming again. We believe in His power to save men from sin. We believe in the necessity of the New Birth, and that this New Birth is through regeneration of the Holy Spirit. We believe that salvation is by grace through faith in the atoning blood of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We believe that God is almighty and deserves our praise and worship. The method used to worship God is not as important as the fact that we do worship Him. We are created for the pleasure of God and to fulfill this purpose. God seeks true worshipers to worship Him in spirit and truth. We believe that this statement of faith is a basis for Christian fellowship and that all born-again men and women who sincerely accept it can, and should, live together in peace and harmony through promoting the cause of Christ.

    Why did these two dads even apply there? Maybe it seemed innocuous because they were looking at the preschool, and they thought their son would just sing happy songs about Jesus, but clearly they must not have checked the website. This is  hardcore Christianity, not something all warm and fuzzy like Episcopalianism. There’s no way their child would ever be accepted there. Even if they had admitted him, socially it would have been awful.

  • When we were looking for a preschool for my son, my wife checked out all of them, and was thrilled to find out how cheap the local mega church was.  I had my David Silverman memeface on, and she asked “Preschool, how bad can it be?”   I checked the website and found a statement of faith that started with the bible being the literal inerrant word of God and that was enough for me (and her).  I don’t mind pushing buttons, but I’m not going to use my son to push them.

  • I actually agree with most of what you wrote, except:

    To say that unless you accept the same sex marriage beliefs you don’t get the money, you are changing the rules and getting Government involved in religion- something that I know you want to avoid. If you start to add the strings you want, than simply take away the money from all private schools, including the secular ones that receive the funds.

    I would say that if private schools want government money, they should partner with the government and become charter schools, with all the oversight and regulation that entails. But I have less of a problem with secular private schools receiving funds because of separation of church and state issues. I don’t think government money should be going to religious schools because it seems like government support of religion. The money that Hope Christian saves by taking this public money they can use to better indoctrinate their students with their worldview. They can more easily update their curriculum or take the children on field trips or invite speakers that promote creationism, abstinence, or any number of other things. Heck, they might even use that money to invite Ken Ham over to do a dinosaur presentation.

  • Scary stuff. I wonder if these parents weren’t aware of what the “Christian” buzzword entails. I think a lot of people who were raised as moderate Protestants don’t realize the difference between mainline groups and the more evangelical flavors of Christianity. It’s one thing to let your child go to school with the mild-mannered Methodists, but the “non-denominational” folks are an entirely different ballgame.

  • Yikes, check out one of Hope Christian School’s Bible courses!

    “Understanding the Times” is the title of the Senior Bible course which deals with the ideas and world views that dominate man’s thinking today. This curriculum, developed by Summit Ministries, will help students to understand the ideas and philosophies behind Marxism, Humanism, the New Age, AIDS, evolution, America’s Christian history, abortion, drug use and rock music. Students are challenged to have a Christian world view and discover a sense of direction and purpose in life. Projects and practical application are included in this course.

    I love how rock music is included. Surely only the most conservative fundamentalists are still complaining about rock and roll?

  • phantomreader42

     Well, if they’re getting all that money to fund anti-bullying training, and they’re still being discriminatory homophobic shitstains, then it can’t be very good anti-bullying training…

  • phantomreader42

     So, you think it’s okay to discriminate against children while taking public money, as long as the world’s largest pedophile cult are the ones doing it. 

  • I don’t think Hemant or anyone else was saying that what this school did was illegal. It’s not illegal for private religious schools to discriminate in either hiring or enrollment.

    However, this story is a prime example of “religion behaving badly.” And for those who believe in strict church-state separation, there’s a discussion to be had about why the government is giving money to religious schools in the first place.

  • Ibis3

    I don’t like the idea of any private school getting public money. Nor do I want public faith schools (due to a Constitutional quirk left over from a previous era we actually have those here, i.e. public Catholic schools). Moreover, private schools should be forced to teach the public, secular curriculum (if they want to teach whatever religious or cultural stuff in addition, then fine). Also, homeschooled kids should have to pass minimum standards every couple of years, ideally including an oral interview with qualified personnel to make sure there’s no neglect or abuse going on.

    Then again, I’m more concerned with the children’s rights to safety and a decent education than I am with the “rights” of parents to brainwash and abuse their children. In other words, children are human beings, not the property of their parents.

  • Dword

    At least my child will graduate high school with a diploma from a so-called ‘subpar’ Christian school in Albuquerque.  … considering the  Albuquerque public school’s 2011 graduation rate was only 63.4% – spectacular results, wouldn’t you say?  I would agree that the Christian school in question should give up their public funding.  If homosexuals are so profoundly interested in a quality education in a setting that would reflect their particular values, perhaps they should just create their own school.

  • So the solution to a less-than-stellar graduation rate is to send kids to a school that teaches false science and revisionist history? I’ll have to pass on that one.

    I have no problem with what the school did, legally speaking. I think discriminating against a three-year-old is rotten, but private schools shouldn’t be forced to enroll students against their will. Academics and religion aside, it seems clear that Hope Christian would have been a very unhealthy environment for the child in question. As a daughter of two moms myself, I would never have wanted to go to a school that taught me my family was evil.

    Anyway, my issue is only with the public funding. I would feel the same way about public funding if Hope Christian were a hippy-dippy, warm-fuzzy “Jesus is a liberal” type of place. I think private schools in general shouldn’t be getting money from the government, but especially religious schools because it muddies the line of church-state separation. I don’t believe the government should be investing in the success of religious schools.

  • Joe

    And it is ridiculous for the school to accept public tax dollars and then discriminate against people. If they want to discriminate then they need to pay back EVERY PENNY they took from the U.S. government.

  • Mattia

    Christian schools have every right to decide who comes to the school. It is amazing that secularists are crying foul because their beliefs are not being accepted, but why should Christian schools accept views that goes against their beliefs ? What give gays the right to say “you must accept our view and liefstyles” . Sorry but that sort of demand was experienced in Nazi Germany. In a democracy people have a moral and legal right to their beliefs. It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. And by the way religion people have never and do not fear homosexuality, rather, we believe it to be wrong.

  • mattias

    Grow up Richard and try and think carefully about this issue. You use strawman arguments that people are sick and tired of. Christians dont hate anybody, I can give you a few Bible verses to support that if you like, rather Christians believe that homosexuality is wrong. It will always be and always have been. And by the way, religion is not dying, it is growing. Atheists are a tiny little portion of the population. Freedom of religion!

  • Mattias

    As a believer myself and taxpayer, the public school system takes my money and uses it to indoctrinate children with secular ways os seeing the world. Hmmm I reject that like you reject taxpayer money going to faith based schools. Try and think a little and you will see that living in a democracy, based on christian values by the way, entails different beliefs and views on matters such as this. Think!

  • You’re arguing against an imaginary enemy. No one here has said that Christian schools don’t have a right to decide who is able to attend. No one has demanded that the school enroll this child. I fully support Hope Christian’s legal right to discriminate in both hiring and enrollment. However, I do not support them (or any other religious school) receiving federal funding, regardless of whether or not they discriminate.

  • Mattias

    But I course I could say exactly the same thing about public schools taking my tax payer money and teaching a seccular indoctrinating curriculum that excludes God as a live option. I could call that discrimatory too. So you can see your problem with this kind of objection. The reality is that Christian schools do not discriminate by not allowing homosexual parerents to enrol a child. Just like you disgaree with the school, they disagree with the lifestyle of homosexuality. The real question is: who is right? And that is a talk we could have.

  • Mattias

    No you are wrong. By receiving public money, which is by the way tax that Christian schools and people pay, the government is reflecting the right of religion to practice what it believes to be true. You call it discrimination only because you disagree, but that is not discimination, that is disagreement. Unless you are asking for a state like Nazi Germany that enforces whatever the state believes, then you have no good argument here. In fact, this is why we have tolerance within a democracy. Let me give the definition of tolerance, as said by the atheist, Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. You see by the school not allowing homosexual parents to enrol their child, they are reflecting tolerance. They disagree with the lifestyle and always will, and although they support their right to say and believe it, and remember, we are not living in Nazi Germany, by the very definition of tolerance they cannot support it. You need to think more carefully with your ideas. Based on your argument, I could easily say that you are discriminating against the school by not allowing them to practice their beliefs. How dare you discriminate!

  • Okay, let’s break this down. Government-funded schools are for all children, from all types of families. Teachers are not allowed to tell children that gods are real, and they are also not allowed to tell children that gods are imaginary. They are not allowed to take a position on the existence of gods one way or the other. They must remain neutral. 
      
    If I wanted to have a school tell my children that gods are imaginary and all religions are false (I don’t, by the way), then I need to pay a private school to do that. Similarly, if Christian parents want a school to tell their children that a certain deity is real and that one particular religion is true, then they must also pay a private school to do that. Neither of us can expect a public school to take that stance. That’s not the purpose of public education.

    Now Christian schools have the right to discriminate against children based on religious (or other) criteria. I have no legal problem with that. These private schools are paid for by parents who wish to have their children indoctrinated into a certain religion. I think their actions and beliefs are morally and factually wrong, but I support their right to do what they want with their own money. As I said, no one here has argued that Hope Christian should be forced to admit children from families they disagree with. Our only issue is with the federal funding.