Remember the Kids Who Protested When Their Gay Administrator was Forced to Resign? This Catholic Wants Them Expelled

Has Rebecca Hamilton ever been right about anything.

Well hey, if the political arena doesn’t work out for her, I hear there’s a library looking for people just like her to be on their board…

Sure, why not? Get those 300 students into a decent collage, and lower tuition to a level more appropriate for this type of collage. I think passing the offering plate around to the students is the more appropriate level.

I thought our goal in life is to raise our children to be thinkers and doers…but when they think and do…someone somewhere wants them punished for it. I believe when an elected official has the cajones to say something ignorant like this…there should be immediate consequences…like removal from office. Maybe instilling a fear of consequence for such unfiltered comments would make some elected officials think before speaking…or just think in general. When did elected representatives stop caring and worrying about what they said…the moment they realized not enough of the general public care enough to do anything about it but shake their head in resignation at another ignorant politician.

Hamilton could not be reached for comment as there is a Duck Dynasty marathon in progress.

When we stopped caring. Honestly, elected officials who said stupid things used to be gone with relatively little fuss. In the last couple of decades we’ve started celebrating anti-intellectualism, and it seems to be a major undercurrent in populist approaches to elected positions.

Yep, she’s Catholic.

Just another few steps in the Catholic march towards complete irrelevance. Maybe the kids should be expelled, so they can go to a school that teaches critical thought.

Having gone to catholic schools my whole life, I was lucky enough to go to a large public university. Once I found out the “slippery slope” argument was a logical fallacy in my Intro to Logic class, everything quickly unraveled.

My comment didn’t survive moderation either. Catholics aren’t fans of dissent.

Also I am sure that the Pope, with his new found sense of equality and love for the LGBT community will step in at any time now to correct this bigoted situation. Or at least send out a decree to insure this will never happen again.

waiting. Any second now.

Crickets. tumble weeds. a lone wolf crying in the back ground….

I will be in my 70s when today’s Millennials are the dominant economic and political demographic. I’m very optimistic that we’ll see a more rational, accepting, caring America. It’s horrible to think that the “negative baggage” has to literally die off, but Lee, you’re right!

Same here, but i told her that the oxygen she’s wasting could be of better use elsewhere.

I know we’re not supposed to be all gloaty, but this really made me smile. If this is the next generation of Catholics, then bring it on!

“Meanwhile, Hamilton ….. has a lot to learn.”
I doubt if she wants to.

If these kids are the product of a failed catholic school, then I am glad that school is failing.

I hope those kids do get kicked out. Then they will be better off in a real school.

a less entitled group of young people…
…says one of the most entitled people on planet earth.

It’s a bit of a surprise that a rabid Catholic blog allows comments in the first place. But if they’re heavily censored, I can see that.

There is some profound irony in a rich white Christian complaining about entitlement.

Freedom of religion is only for their religion and freedom of speech is only for speech that agrees with them.

Well, we all know how those godless libruls can’t tolerate even the slightest bit of dissension from the Party Line.

What… again? Fuck. These political stereotypes are getting really confusing for me.

That’s how you know these sorts of things aren’t really about doctrine.

………

$19000/yr for that school. Maybe she should advocate checking into the parents because very few “Catholic families” can afford to put six children through that school, so as to make sure those parents aren’t flouting the RCC’s anti-contraceptive mandate.

I wholeheartedly agree. The new generation is very pro-gay and when they take over homophbia will be a thing of the past. Oh sure you will still have anti-gay types around but they will be looked upon like the KKK is today. Things WILL get better. We just need the old backwoods fundamentalist types to die off.

Expel over 300 students? When they see the huge loss of revenue for the school they may reconsider.

Paraphrasing myself:
1. Someone so certain her views were the only correct ones shouldn’t be complaining about entitlement and narcissism.
2. Narrowing down her “the world hates Christianity” stance, I said in the US you can’t use the government to enforce your religion.
3. I said she didn’t have to use scare quotes when saying Zmuda is married. He Is married, and her sacraments and church dogma don’t define how the law sees it.

I’ll agree that it wasn’t what she’d want to hear, especially #1, but I wasn’t wrong either. Nowhere did I threaten her or call her names. Don’t dish it if you can’t take it.

Lower tuition? What planet does she live on? If they kicked out 300 students they would have to RAISE tuition.

The problem is, the Catholic church is not a democracy. If you do not agree with its tenets, then you have to find another religion, or abandon religion altogether.

I commented on Rebecca’s blog solely to express disapproval of Glasofruix’s rather – er – combative comment directed at her. i.e. I was offering support to Rebecca despite disagreeing with her on the issue at hand. I made no other comment.

And even that has been deleted.

Well, it seems nothing can be allowed to get in the way of her negative characterisation of atheists…

[e2a: I think Disqus is playing with me. My comment appeared, then disappeared – and now it’s back! It seems I was wrong to assume it was Rebecca’s moderation that made it disappear.]

I don’t disagree with you. My point is that most people who call themselves Catholic are not at all, since they don’t adhere to its tenets. They might as well leave the church, since they aren’t truly members.

No. The RCC is not just the hierarchy, but the whole people of God. A majority of American Catholics disagree with Church teaching on birth control (which arose out of brazen institutional self-interest); it does not mean they are no longer Catholic.

As a former Catholic, I wish the Catholic Church would excommunicate me. I don’t want to be associated with them in any way.

I’m still not seeing the problem.

You can’t say i’ve been impolite, can you now?

Well, that’s one of these “freedom of speech” moments fundies just love.
Apparently, you can write long hateful articles and as long as you
strategically place some Jesus in them you’re rightful and just, but the fact that more reserved and factual comments (not mine obviously) pointing out why ms Hamilton’s verbal diarrhea is wrong were censored just proves she’s a giant turd.

I have no tolerance left for those people, hence the “choke and die” comment.

It’s not so much as a “comment” thread as a “list of things readers have said that I agree with” thread.

The angriest discussion I ever heard in 30+ years of teaching high school English happened amongst a group of seniors who discovered that they were all former parochial school students.

Up until then I thought the worst was when my life-long friend revealed that, as an elementary student, a nun stuck her tongue out at him and denounced him as a demon. Knowing Ray, I assume he merely asked an intelligent question.

I know, i know :p

I can assure you that among many commenters around here i’m quite reasonnable (and less frequent commenters might not know me), but that old bat does not deserve any respect whatsoever.

I’m amused by your insistence on the One True Xian™ fallacy, but I agree with your conclusion. I think it would be a great thing if all those non-practicing Catholics stopped supporting a church they do not agree with.

Every comment disagreeing with her is moderated. Except those that she can use to her advantage.

Disappointing to hear this woman is a member of my state’s House of Reps.

I am continually amazed to find Xian apologists who INSIST that the Church has never had a problem with pedophilia, whatever problem there might have been stopped 40 years ago, or that all accusations have been trumped-up to make the Church look bad. I’ve often wondered how they could possibly be so deluded, but if they only ever get their “news” from heavily moderated insular blogs and from their priest or pastor, that might explain their ignorance. Hit them with facts and if they don’t fold, they just deny.

When did elected representatives stop caring and worrying about what they said…?

I don’t think they’ve ever cared much, but the Internet Age has made their words directly available to all their constituents into perpetuity. The political machine is slow to adapt, so they think they can still deny their own record and disappear things down the memory hole. It’s funny to watch sometimes.

doesn’t she fit right in with all the other anti-gay bigots in your state and in your state government? i had the misfortune of having to live in tulsa for 3 years. pitiful. and i was told that’s the progressive part of the state.

Am i seeing things or the picture she uses for her blog is a severe case of martyrbation?

No, really you don’t. Most Catholic women use birth control without facing any censure. A Catholic friend once explained it as ‘leaving your religion in church’.

It would appear that it has succeeded so well that their first loyalty is not to the Church, but to the trendy morality of the larger culture.

As opposed to the “unchanging” morality of the Catholic church, which is better just because she says it is, LOL.

I had a fundamentalist Catholic tell me that all sexual “sins” aren’t equal. So maybe that’s it.

It’s a huge hassle to get yourself excommunicated. Aforementioned Catholic friend has tried; first he told his priest outright he was living in sin with his GF, guy told him that was all good and he should come back to church. He finally wrote the Vatican a personal letter requesting excommunication because of his disgust with the Church’s handling of the scandals in Ireland and never heard back either.

That excuse is in neither your nor Friendly Atheist’s favor.

Ha. On that we agree.

You have to work in some capacity for the Catholic Church and really screw up. Like a theologian who criticizes the church or teaches heterodox beliefs. And even then they will probably just have their teaching job or license revoked (depending on how their country handles these things).

It’s the same trick pulled by fundamentalists of any religion. For the sake of looking big an important, they count everybody who says they’re a member, then they denounce them as *not really members* for not following the party line as soon as convenient.

So if an ordinary Catholic fesses up to desecrating the host, worshiping the devil and celebrating black mass, they’re still too insignificant to excommunicate? Wow, that’s interesting.

As a resident of Washington state who voted for Referendum 74, I would like to extend my particular thanks for making your point #3. If I wanted some Oklahoma legislator telling me what the law is, I’d go live in Oklahoma.

Is this because of the whole infant baptism and formal confirmation thing? It’s like if you did the ritual, you count no matter your current beliefs or behavior?

You called her a shit stain and wished out loud that she would choke to death. So what if you don’t respect her? So what if there’s no law against it? That remark was hateful.

I hope you’re not one of these whiners who get all outraged when the Christians hurt your feelies. You don’t have a molecule to stand on.

Rebecca Hamilton has deleted most, but not all, of the posts by atheists to her site. For example, she did not delete this post (which she might have posted herself?):

“Dear Rebecca Hamilton, you are a feces stain, please choke and decease without delay so the world would become a better place. ”

Rebecca replied:

“hamiltonr Mod
Don’t you just love atheists and their intellectual approach to things? These comments alone prove that “reason” is their metier. ”

For the record, here is my comment, awaiting moderation. I’m reposting here as I do not expect to see it on Ms. Hamilton’s site:

“I commented earlier to this site, politely, and my post was deleted. Based on comments on another site, the comments of many atheists have been removed here.

The above comment was unacceptable by any standard. However, if you (1) choose to delete many polite posts from atheists, and (2) leave only the one crude comment and then (3) say “See ALL atheists are hateful” you might want to double check your book where it talks about bearing false witness (aka lying).”

No rationalization will make it better. It’s a race to the bottom that sucks.

I’m an atheist, too, you know, and I have never been insulted by a Christian like that. The worst was when kick implied I was a swine. (I forgive you seventy times seven, kick!)

I DID write a comment full of reason and arguments using less picturesque language describing the points where her reasonning was weak (everywhere basically) before that one and not seeing it (twice) i tried a more direct approach.

Yep, it’s gone.

Congrats!

You discovered the secret to not having your comment deleted by this fair and honest christian, who honors both the spirit and the letter of god’s holy word. What do you want to bet she advocated for the placement of the 9 commandments on govt property?

Interesting: Rebecca explicitly states in the comments section that she knows she has been targeted by an atheist blog on Patheos (she doesn’t name Friendly Atheist, but c’mon). Further, she states she will delete comments from anyone who appears to be making comments on her blog because they read about it on the atheist blog. Case in point: I made the following polite yet direct post and it was deleted almost immediately:

“Rebecca Hamilton, why use quotes on the word ‘married’? You are aware that same-sex marriage is just as legal as opposite-sex marriage, right? So why the quotes?”

I don’t think Glasofruix is claiming that the reason makes it better. Only that it explains why it occurred. And morality entirely aside, often it is unreasonable to expect the dog that has been kicked to not bite back. Turning the other cheek is an ethic that has psychological limits, whatever its merits as a moral theory.
———————————————–

But it isn’t all that implausible even in the context of ethics.

Ironically, the teleological suspension of the ethical has its origins as a concept in Christianity itself. Perceptive Christians realized that many of the purported acts of God as well as many-upon-many of the actual acts of the religious cannot be justified by resorting to ethical categories. It is always wrong to ask someone to kill their own child, even if you know you weren’t really serious the whole time, and it is always wrong to denigrate and degrade a person on account of traits they did not pick, not to mention it is always wrong to kill and steal and lie in the name of peace and liberty and truth.

But sometimes doing right can’t possibly do the job. You perhaps can’t test someone’s faith for realsies, as God purportedly did with Abraham, without jerking them around quite a bit. You perhaps can’t confront the deepest racism of your followers effectively without subverting the categories they rely upon by using them in an unexpected (but still necessarily racist) way. And sometimes some folk just need killing, sometimes a lie will prevent a greater evil that would follow from the truth, sometimes ameliorating the effects that follow from wealth and poverty should come before the crude unthinking sanctification of stuff.

And they say religious people (and Gods) aren’t consequentialists. Pshaw. I think it’s an extremely thin reed to rest any moral argument, but it’s not one I dismiss out of hand. Sometimes people are just out to viciously hurt others they don’t like, and they happen to have power or authority or influence, and slavishly obeying the social niceties when confronted with their moral ugliness in an effort to rise above their example only gives them more space and more license to be effective in their cruelty. When playing the social game, such people invariably cheat; they aren’t playing by civilized rules. If a person enjoys slapping cheeks, turning the other one is not likely to produce a helpful result.

So i wouldn’t say that lashing out is justified on any moral level except in extreme situations, but I definitely understand it to the point that sometimes I don’t think it right to call it out as bad.

Oh! Why don’t you tell Glasofruix how to talk or tweet or go to the bathroom, too, while you’re at it.
-r
-=-

“I hope you’re not one of those atheists who get all butthurt when another atheist speaks his or her mind.”
Samesies.
-r
-=-

Good point, TCC, but my optimism is based in part on the fact that Gen Xers are reportedly retaining their values as they age. But I see the real key trait to be that Millennials are generally not threatened by diversity. I think they can carry that basic worldview throughout their lives.

Martyrbation is the name of my new black metal band.

Hey, another thing that Catholic schools can dislocate their own arms patting themselves on the back for!

I wish they could take the good parts of the schools but cut out the bad parts. But then I can’t help but think that the kids who go to Catholic schools come from families where education is super important, and wealthier than average or at least willing to go through hoops to fund the education.

So there is a bit of self-selection going on.

Hamilton should be recalled, censured at least, for advocating against students’ First Amendment rights.

then again, it is a private school, so if they choose to expel them, they likely have that right, but as a state official, Hamilton has no business involved, and had shown herself to be a Catholic above being an American. #notJFK

can you bring it up with admins?

Sarcasm, right? Very few American Adults have that level of Ignorance and Bigotry anymore. If you’re serious, your mind is still in the 18th Century.

Exactly. In fact, the kids of parents who value education highly generally do well even at the worst public schools.

Pope Francis declares ‘all religions are true’

http://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/pope-francis-condemns-racism-and-declares-that-all-religions-are-true-at-historic-third-vatican-council/

How exactly are these teens “entitled” when they show support for an ousted vice principal?

That word…

If you can’t see how what you’ve said can be considered impolite, then I suspect that the oxygen you’re wasting could be of better use elsewhere.

You might find Jonathan Haidt’s research to make interesting reading that can illuminate that perspective. (Oversimplified answer: because that’s how conservatives’ brains work.)

As a matter of fact, Jesus never uttered a thing about homosexuality.

She suggested that i go tell all of you not to verbally abuse her. I told her many on this blog have already expressed exactly that sentiment. She wouldn’t post my reply. Wouldn’t want to draw attention to all those decent people who destroy her bigoted stereotype.

Or you can just make your support for gay marriage super vocal right?

Or conform to what the world says. Frankly, the world can be two faced when it comes to a lot of matters.

If people have actually been paying attention the Catholic Church has been clamping down but they continuing to spout that cliché out. Just shove it because its not new anymore but trite and worn out.

Atypical for laypeople who are Catholic, including many in my family BTW.
Quite typical for Catholic leaders to silence dissent.

An ideolgues greatest fear…people rejecting bigotry. Good for them.

Most ofmthe Catholic blogs on Patheos censor. They are the worst.

I gave her a few more comments to delete. But the thing that stuck out to me was the way she referred to the protest as “dozens of students”. Yes, I said in my first comment, I suppose you could call 300 a certain number of dozens, but it would seem that hundreds would have been a more appropriate term unless you were trying to minimize the scale of the protest.

Anyway, I find it funny that she just redefined me from largely being a hipster into a devotee of popular culture. Yep, caring about your fellow human and being concerned about fairness and justice is trendy. Good thing she doesn’t follow a religion founded on the words of a man who cared about social justice and concern for other the less fortunate.

Would you consider it two faced to protect pedophile priests who break the law and directly harm people and then fire a law abiding man for marrying the man he loves, and act which harmed no one?

I saw her comments and actually you really are not telling the truth.

Answer my question please. Do you consider it two faced to be covering up pedophiles (they have done it and continue to do it, new stories come out all the time, saying they are taking it seriously does not make it so) and prosecuting law abiding married people?

I actually have read Haidt, and “that’s how conservatives’ brains work” doesn’t really answer the question of why they work that way, and what justification they have for putting loyalty above morality. Haidt claims that conservatives weigh loyalty, caring, justice, etc., roughly equally, but here Hamilton is completely disregarding caring, fairness, and liberty and considering only loyalty (and implicitly, sanctity and authority). This contradicts Haidt’s insistence that liberal’s perception of conservatives not caring about care, fairness, or liberty is a stereotype and misunderstanding of conservative thinking. The only time that Hamilton brings out caring, fairness, or liberty is when she can present Orwellian arguments for why liberals are uncaring, bigoted authoritarians for opposing discrimination (Courthouses are oppressing Christians by not giving them special privileges like having “In God We Trust” plaques! School are oppressing Christians by not giving students that want to pray special rights! Universities not giving money to Christian groups that discriminate is like the Holocaust!) . She clearly uses is appealing to these dimensions as rhetorical tools, not things she really believes in.

Hamilton puts abstract theological arguments ahead of actual human beings suffering actual harm. Not only that, but she treats anyone who suffers pangs of conscience at seeing someone deprived of his livelihood simply because he married someone without his employer’s permission (!) as being morally degenerate.

Wow, well I’ve said it again and I’ll say it again, the Catholic Church is doing an amazing job at killing itself.

Excommunicated Catholics – unless they cease for some other reason to belong to the Church – are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommunication

How many polite comments disagreeing with Ms. Hamilton did you see? Few or none, because Ms. Hamilton DELETED them herself. Then she deleted posts calling her out for keeping one or two nasties so she could use them to play the martyr.

This has happened in other cases. As long as people say pretty words agreeing with doctrine and pretend to go along, everything is fine. It’s like the emperors new clothes. The biggest sin is saying the truth out loud.

Then explain why so many catholic families in developed countries have only one or two kids rather than 8 or 10. Every one of those couples became magically infertile after the second kid? Not one could possibly be defying church teaching.

Oh, she also uses scare quotes around “women’s health” when she writes lies about planned parenthood. I’ve read some of her articles and she does this often when her definition of a word is different from the real world’s.

Oh, I absolutely sympathise with your sense of frustration. I just felt a bit uncomfortable with the way you expressed it, and thought it was important to show her that she is wrong to suggest that we atheists just pile on to poor old persecuted Catholics. But then, I suspect she knows that already!

Your opposite number at the other blog, The Cowardly Bigot, seems to moderate the comments. I dont think mine will make the grade.

Still, at least she is consistent in her disregard for American Free Speech(tm)

Oh good. My mother kept trying to say I was Catholic and just not practicing. Like it was the mob or something. Good to know I’m free and clear.

Yup. That list of saints is never-changing, too.

Did… did you really just make an argument that a word has too many connotative meanings? Really? That’s your counter to that?

That may have made a difference, but I’m simply referring to when the particular study I have in mind was done.

Just to add, I’ve read Haidt’s work and I think he presents an interesting model of how people think, but he doesn’t do a very good job (to me) of explaining why ‘obey authority’ or ‘group loyalty’ or ‘purity’ *should* be moral values. I mean, maybe that’s not within the scope of his work in terms of describing how people think, but he seems to have expressed views that these moral dimensions *should* be accepted as valid.

come on-thats a stupid lie

because biblical morality, like teh god you worship, is subjective

Not if it looks like its confirming her portrait of atheists as vulgar abusive angry assholes. Aren’t we supposed to be the rational ones?

In the article in question, she is not displaying any regard for caring, fairness, or liberty. She’s not arguing that loyalty outweighs caring, she’s saying that loyalty is the only concern. The students are clearly making a caring argument, and she’s not addressing it at all. It would be like writing an article on Rosa Parks, and framing her actions solely in terms of disobeying authority figures, and not acknowledging the justice issue at all. When she does mention caring in other posts, it’s always how the oppressors’ poor widdle feelings are hurt when someone tells them they’re not allowed to oppress others. All of her “caring” arguments are transparent pretexts to defend Christian privilege.

I don’t know about expulsion, but yes, it is time this students learn the same lesson the fundies had to learn the hard way.
Sometimes, your righteous indignation doesn’t change that certain places do things in a certain way and you can’t cry “persecution” or “bigotry” whenever you want.
Correction, you can cry, but it’s not always that someone will be impressed and capitulate.

The Catholic Church has lasted this long because its number one priority is survival of the Catholic Church. As fun as it would be, I don’t think they are going anywhere. Just look at this blogger, she celebrates the idea that she’s handed her right to think for herself away to a bunch of supposedly celibate men in robes.

I’ve waited about 20 hours for my comments to get approved. I don’t think I was rude. Hopefully she’s just busy, and the more recent comments that have been posted since are simply by pre-approved posters or something.

My how the tables have turned. It was only days ago that you were all up in arms with indignation over the idea that an ignorant bearded guy who said some hateful things might have to deal with the consequences of his statements.

Now you want hundreds of students to suffer some kind of penalty for speaking out in support of someone who they understood was being treated unfairly.

You seem to have a terribly perverted sense of justice and fairness. I used to believe that you were just naively ideological. Now I’m not so sure, you seem to be acting out of a desire to protect terrible people and punish the good.

Well I play by my own rules not theirs. If I say I’m not a Catholic, I’m not a Catholic!

Wow. I wanted to see for myself how heavy handed the moderation on her blog was. I admitted having been linked but stated that I did not (yet) self identify as an atheist and that I am, in fact, married to a Catholic (which is a whole different can of worms but was my attempt to prove that I was not attempting to be overly antogonistic.) While conceeding that the school was liekly legally within their rights regarding the firing, I questioned whether or not it was fair to assume anything regarding the students as I was aware of a similar situation in a church we attended where a worship leader was openly gay. If the church wishes to enforce these morality codes, ought they not do it immeadietly upon becoming aware of a situation rather than waiting until something like this? Otherwise, it is sending a mixed signal. I am bordering on babbling here but truly I only wished to question that the situation might be more nuanced than she suggested. And I was deleted within 5 minutes. What a poor representative to Catholicism she is. And quite horrifying that she is a state representative as well. I know I shouldn’t be shocked. But I am.
Oh, and hi. I read all the time, but first time commenting.

If these students wanted to voice their extreme displeasure with what happened, I’d commend them. For them to stop attending school altogether……no.

You brought up the Duck Dynasty guy. Let’s say a gay person appeared on the show (which another gay commenter said has happened, without incident). Let’s say, Robertson, in a fit of homophobic pique stormed off the show because they dared have a gay person on.

I’d say “Fire his ass and say good riddance.”

I just had a thought. (yeah, I know) Churches are generally set up so that one main person (pastor, priest) tells you what the bible means, and how to interpret it and so on. So when a lay person is repeating the beliefs and those are challenged, the person really doesn’t know how to react. You aren’t encouraged at church to refute, or talk back, or question, or challenge beliefs. (my experience is with the Lutheran church) Even the idea that someone would argue with them is totally foreign so it must be some kind of attack. That person is just a mean person, that’s why they are attacking.
Rebecca actually reminds me a lot of my ex who was raised catholic and went to catholic schools. He was always very quick to tell me I was being mean and that any argument against him was just an attack. I’m wondering if that came from being catholic.
I realize not all churches are the same, but it could be true for many churches.

I’ll say again. It wasn’t that many days ago that you couldn’t show enough enthusiasm for protecting a vile man from facing the consequences of his actions. Now you are eager to see children who did a good thing face negative consequences.

You’re not acting on some kind of naive idealism, you’re looking to protect hateful people and see ones that display behavior that you claim to admire face punishment.

And let’s not get into any more of your analogies right now. You’ve used too many inappropriate ones and when called on them tried to act like it wasn’t fair to point that out.