Jesus Preschool Redux

My recent post Keep Jesus OUT of Education drew a fair number of comments. One reader in particular, David, defended the decision by the archdiocese to deny a place to a small child because the parents were lesbians.
He argued that the school, being a private Catholic entity, had the right to take this action (a point with which I legally agree but to which I morally object – more on that below); that there is scientific proof of the existence of god – specifically (among others) the first law of thermodynamics; that there is absolutely no proof for evolution; that evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics, along with a rather muddled rehashing of Pascal’s wager, all slawed together in a creamy mixture of petulant, insistent, dogmatic myopia with chopped Discovery Institute factoids.

I tried responding to his arguments with logic, reason and evidence – three elements almost entirely missing from his many comments. Much like the blithering, racist imbeciles featured in Where Do Idiots Come From?, this approach was completely ineffective.

It raises another question for which I may, again, have no answer.
I’m still not sure where idiots come from, but I’m curious what to do about them. There certainly seems to be more of them about than anyone needs or could reasonably consider useful.

In terms of posting comments on VNV, idiots can be entertaining and provocative…but they can also be insistent, stalkerish, stubbornly ignorant and a pain in the ass. If they weren’t so passionate, I’d ban them for trolling.
I’ve never banned anyone just for being stupid, although it is seeming more and more like an option. As Ron White says, “You can’t fix stupid.”
The fact that JTF and The Mad Jewess might still manage to have a word is more than proof that I have the tolerance and patience of Job (who was a fucking idiot, himself…I’d reject on principle any cunting god who pulled that shit just to prove a point).

In any case, I haven’t banned David. He’s welcome to comment.
I am filtering him. If his comments are on point – connected to the discussion in some rational way, they’ll make it to the thread. But I don’t think I can handle any more unthinking, disjointed brain farts of unreferenced, illogical yammering featuring argument of the intellectual depth, “The sky is blue, the ocean is blue, thus they are made of the same stuff.”
Even if I were to explain the difference between air and water, David would show up with a link proving that everything is really made out of quarks…a fact that utterly ignores his initial argument which then fails to explain why everything isn’t blue.

The foregoing is all by way of explanation. I have decided to elevate my closing comment to David for this post. Between the lines, there is a loose elucidation of my developing comment policy. If I can ever express it more clearly than the Supreme Court can define pornography, I’ll post it in a tab. Until then, community standards are the rule. I am the benevolent, omnipotent god of THIS blog…don’t make me go all Old Testament on your ass.
The comment also addresses further the decision of the Catholic archdiocese to kick a toddler out of preschool and how the stated reason for this move – to protect the child from hurt feelings and confusion – is exactly the sort of bullshit, self-serving, nonsensical lie thinking people expect from an organization that steals from the stupid with fairy tale threats and promises.

A little more background: Sedate Me, a regular commenter who needs and appreciates the provocative idiots almost as much as I do, got into the record of the Catholic church as pedophiles, along with the fact that the church covered it up and permitted it to continue. David responded with stats and an unrelated link arguing that most priests were innocent, and not as bad as other groups of pedophiles. I’ll let the thread itself take it from here…

David, on March 12, 2010 at 2:23 am Said:

The fact is that nobody really knows, but fewer than 1 in 20 priests in the US and the world have been even accused, much less convicted. Statistics vary from 1 to 5 in a 100. That leaves the vast majority of priests as innocent. Incidents in US Public Schools vary from 3.5% to 50% of students being molested in school. Charol Shakeshaft, “Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature,” U.S. Department of Education, 2004-JUN, at:
Raw numbers lie, considering that Catholics are 1 of every 5 or 6 people in the world.

cousinavi, on March 12, 2010 at 2:42 am Said:

David…(sigh). Your understanding of statistics is no better than your comprehension of physics.

Without digging any deeper than the face of it, the figures you offer compare the percentage of priests convicted NOT to the percentage of teachers convicted, but rather to the percentage of victims. I hope you can see that that’s an obvious case of comparing peaches to pedophiles.

How many children did each priest molest?

The figure “from 3.5% to 50%” is so damn broad that it’s meaningless. How many? Oh, somewhere between 2 and 650 at every school.

How was “sexual abuse” defined? Some studies would include suggestive remarks, others would set it aside; some would include making a person uncomfortable, others would not.

In any case, once again, the “evidence” you offer is meaningless.

There are FAR more teachers than priests. I would suggest that a figure much smaller than 5% of teachers molest students. One significant difference is that when a teacher gets caught, they don’t get moved to another school where they can continue molesting students, which is apparently church policy.

Your statement that “the vast majority of priests” are innocent is also meaningless. It could mean they haven’t been accused, charged or convicted. Nevertheless, the same words apply to teachers – the vast majority of them are innocent, so…yet again (and again and again) you are not making a cogent or rational argument, and what you think is evidence is irrelevant chatter.

In any case, if you want to start tossing around unexplained numbers, try comparing victims to victims and perpetrators to perpetrators…or SOME damn thing that’s rationally connected to the argument you’re trying to make.
If it’s now that teachers molest more kids than priests, absent some solid fucking evidence (you know…REAL evidence), I say you have your head stuck up your cassock.
Furthermore, David, you assert that between 3.5 and 50% of students are molested in school. By whom?
Other students? Teachers? Janitors?
In order for such a vast range of blithering nothing to be at all comprehensible, it needs to be tied to some information on who’s committing the crime. Unless you want to include all the attacks committed by Catholics, not just by priests. Or is it the crime scene that has you bug-eyed? Will you now argue that very, very few Catholic children are actually molested IN the church.
Jesus…we’re going to have to work up a curriculum for you. Physics, statistics, biology, basic logic. I don’t know if you were ever molested, but your teachers certainly did you a disservice.

David, on March 12, 2010 at 5:21 am Said:

If you cared to read the report, you’d know the answer. Or don’t. You think your opinions about me or anything else mean anything? I don’t. You have no basis for the blog you posted either. Did you bother to check out the facts of the story? I doubt it. Time for me to beam up. There’s no intelligence in this blog.

cousinavi, on March 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm Said:

If you cared to provide a link to the report, instead of just to the DoE main page (where there appears to be no link to anything like what you’re talking about), I might.

My opinion of you may not matter, David, to anyone (even me). My opinion of your argument, however, is directly relevant to this discussion. Your assertions contain no logic or evidence, lack cogency, consistency, and are constructed of nothing more than premises you haul out of your ass, which were in turn cobbled together based on the conclusions you’ve already reached, and (despite your insistence otherwise) utterly fail to support your position.
Rather than emulate you and merely sputter, “You’re wrong! It’s not true!” I have taken the time and effort to patiently explain to you why your evidence is not evidence, your premises are really conclusions, your conclusions are not supported by what you offer as evidence AND your conclusions are not logically connected to your premises. None of this seems to have any effect. I can only conclude that you are either incapable of understanding these things, or you’re just too stubbornly dogmatic to consider them.

The initial post – Keep Jesus Out of Education – is based on a cogent argument. Here an educational institution is denying a place to a small child; a PRE-SCHOOL is kicking a toddler out because it disagrees with private, perfectly legal lifestyle choices of the parents.
The reason given by the school – that they teach based on their religion and wish to avoid upsetting the child when he or she is told by the teacher that homosexuality is morally wrong – simply doesn’t hold up…and I’ll tell you why. The school admits Muslim toddlers as students. According to the Catholic church, Muslims (who most certainly do not accept Jesus Christ as the saviour) are sinners doomed to eternal hell.
Now, as between a teacher saying, “Your two mommies are doing something wrong by loving each other,” and, “Your two mommies are going to hell where they will burn in a lake of fire for ever and ever,” which do YOU think might be more upsetting to a small child?
For that matter, telling a small child that ANYONE is going to eternal hell for any reason is, in my opinion, despicable, contemptible behaviour bordering on child abuse. It presumes that children born to Catholic parents, while still too young to comprehend the dogmatic philosophical choice being imposed upon them, lack compassion and feeling for their fellow man; that they understand and agree (at the age of three and four years) that sinners deserve to go to hell and are nodding along with their teacher as they contemplate their eternal reward at god’s right hand.
It not only presumes children lack the compassion to be literally horrified by such a proposition, it ignores that they are children and may well believe such ugly stories much the same way they believe in Santa Claus.

Nevertheless, the stated reason for turning this child away is not only hogwash, it’s insulting hogwash – the sort of lie that implies the Catholic church (protectors of child rapists and celebrators of Hitler’s birthday) think we’re too fucking stupid to see through it.
And, given that it’s obviously false reasoning, one might then wonder if the rather more obvious rationale for this decision isn’t just what it appears to be at first glance: Homophobia and the unmitigated desire to force their morality on everyone else…or punish them if they refuse to comply. So much for “Love the sinner – hate the sin,” eh?

So what we have here is the Catholic church, so outraged that there are gay people in the world, insisting that they will refuse to provide educational services TO A TODDLER (a total innocent, no matter what her mommies do), in retribution against a private violation of an optional moral code (incumbent only on believers…who fall far short of it themselves far too often to be taken seriously) to which they do not subscribe.

Imagine what would happen were the church to get it’s filthy, gnarled hands on PUBLIC education. No child with any gay family member would be permitted to attend school. Which, come to think of it, would be rather a courtesy, since the school would be teaching that the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs and humans lived together, evolution is false, the earth is the at the center of the universe and the sun moves around it.

In any event, the idea that a bunch of celibate old men wearing dresses can deny education to a child based on their fantastic delusions about virgin birth, transubstantiation, and a magical sky wizard is prima facie evidence for the argument that these brainless, lying, stealing, murdering, heartless fuckwits never be permitted to lay a finger on the way in which children are educated in a world that values truth and justice.

So, David, I had a perfectly reasonable basis for the blog post.
And, I think you’re right…it is time you beamed up. How surprising you depart with reference to another dramatic fiction with a cult-like following. Your phaser was set to STUNNED when you arrived.


21 Responses

  1. Very effective presentation, sir.
    You might want to avoid hyperbole (catholics celebrate Hitler’s birthday), since this idiot doesn’t know what hyperbole is, and will point out it’s not literally true.
    Then you’ll have to go into a history lesson explaining who Pius XI was and how he shamefully failed to denounce the Nazis, etc., none of which this guy will understand.

    • Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler’s birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops’ allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.
      (complete with footnotes)

  2. “Imagine what would happen were the church to get it’s filthy, gnarled hands on PUBLIC education. No child with any gay family member would be permitted to attend school. Which, come to think of it, would be rather a courtesy, since the school would be teaching that the earth is 6000 years old, dinosaurs and humans lived together, evolution is false, the earth is the at the center of the universe and the sun moves around it.”

    Principle aside, this is the nugget. The parents of any child should should see such expulsion from a religious school as a blessing, as the school exercising its own quality control for society. It’s like a litmus test: expel a student for religious-dogmatic reasons, the student shouldn’t be there anyway.

  3. thanks littlejohn and avi- I didn’t know about that particular set of events surrounding hitler and the Catholic church’s wartime relations with him and the reich.

  4. Interesting that you make appeals to three apparently different realms- logic, morality, and law. How do you differentiate those? Do people who disagree with your morality (which apparently simultaneously holds that Jesus should not be in pre-school and that Karl Rove should be slaughtered like an animal) fail to do so because of inadaquate logic.

    I pose a challenge. Give me reasons, based solely on logic, that I *should* not slaughter you like an animal if I feel like doing so.

    • Challenge response: Do not do to others what would be repulsive were it done to you.

      The Rove headline was metaphor, relating to the upcoming interview with Brokaw, in which I would hope Tom confronts Karl with the many lies contained in his book.

      Morality and law are certainly not separate realms. While the law, historically and in practice, has largely been concerned with maintaining the staus quo and protecting property rights, there is more than sufficient overlap with moral questions that the two are not at all easily separated. Thankfully, at least in Western culture, there is a conscious attempt to prevent religiously based morality from impinging on the more secular legal system.

      Likewise, the statement that “Jesus should not be in preschool” rather misses the point of the article, don’t you think?
      I would have no problem with some storybook version of religious studies being taught to children, so long as the other deities got equal time…although perhaps that ought to wait until a little later.
      I do have a problem with space being denied to a child on the basis of the sexual orientation of his or her parents. Especially so when the archdiocese concocts such blatant lies in order to justify the discrimination (as discussed in the post). In that regard, “Jesus” should have no place in the classroom.

  5. “Do not do to others what would be repulsive were it done to you” is not necessarily logical. If I (or I and my cohorts) were strong enough to do unto others with impunity, it might be more logical to go that route.

    We could go on and on, but let’s get to the endgame. You don’t like others saying that xyz are wrong for everyone because its based on their personal religious beliefs.

    However, you have no problem telling them that saying that is wrong based on . . . your own personal morality cannot be driven down to pure logic or some sort of natural law.

    I call hypocrisy.

    • It’s perfectly logical. One suspects your position, were you the victim of those strong enough to act with impunity, would change. You would not be of the opinion that they, being strong enough, have the right on that basis alone to kill you.
      Such strained hypotheticals as “strong enough to act with impunity” are not constructed to fairly discuss what is, or what ought, but in willful blindness of both reason and reality.

      I attempt a rational view of right and wrong actions fundamentally based on the principle given in response to your challenge.
      I certainly don’t argue for anything like “natural law” or “pure logic”, but rather a framework that takes into account individual happiness balanced with the requirements of community; intellectual and physical freedom from oppression and injustice; human nature (insofar as such a thing can be understood); the facts of nature as revealed by the scientific process (as opposed to scriptural fairy tales). This framework does not originate from any higher place or power, but is admittedly assembled by me – it is a purely human construct.
      On this basis, I have no trouble concluding that religious beliefs about parental homosexuality ought to be insufficient to deny a child access to education.
      If the lack of pure foundational logic in that conclusion offends you, so be it. It certainly is not hypocrisy. My moral framework would not deny any child access to education based on any behaviour or belief held by the parents. THAT would be hypocrisy.

      You would appear to be one of those philosophy grads who love to play sorites games. “There’s no way to logically support ANY moral code!”
      Or, perhaps, one of those fundie god sorts, only slightly altering the argument to, “There’s no way to know what is right or wrong without god!”

      Quite simply, that’s nothing more than sophistry – horseshit of the worst kind.
      All morality is constructed by humans. It develops as a result of our needs, desires, social constructs, survival strategies, community organization, family bonds…and almost infinite list of elements of varying weight depending on where and when one decides to look. The rather twisted scribbling of Bronze Age shepherds has no place in determining who may or may not attend school. That a private Catholic entity has the legal right to make such a decision only further impugns religion as a basis for moral judgment.

      Additionally, I don’t care what they believe, or what they say…or what they do…except to the extent that those actions affect other people. There will always be conflicting rights. Striking a balance between them is not necessarily a simple matter, and precisely the subject of our notions of law, justice, morality, right and wrong…
      None of these matters are dealt with in the vacuum of your hypothetical, but rather in the real world – a world populated by real people. The absence of a “purely logical” basis for a system by which these conflicts can be addressed is not a sufficient, or even a good reason for failing to address them.

      Quite frankly, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who argues that since no moral code may be reduced to pure logic then all moral codes are equal, has disqualified themselves from the debate.

  6. Your Honor, I must continue my objection. You noted, correctly, the celebration of Hitler’s birthday by the Vatican. I assure you I was aware of that.
    However, you made your assertion in the present tense.
    If the Vatican still celebrates Hitler’s birthday, then I will concede Your Honor’s point.
    Counsel is about to fix himself a drink. Would Your Honor care for a spot of rum? Surely a brief recess is in order.
    I await your instructions.

    • August 8, every year, in a secret vault underneath St. Peter’s, the Pope gathers together with the select few to toss off a few shots of schnapps and Zeig Heil der Fuhrer on his birthday.
      I’m waiting now for the proof, which is being smuggled out by an undercover choir boy who has the film hidden up his ass.

      Rum is good.

      Adding: I think if you look at the quote, it was something like, “Protectors of pedophiles and celebrators of Hitler’s birthday…”
      I think that may be fairly interpreted (both elements) as things the church has done but hopefully have ceased doing.
      In either case, it really is like that joke about the fellow in the bar: “I spent my life at sea…do they call me Joe the Sailor? No. I raised nine kids…do they call me Joe the Family Man? No. But you fuck ONE PIG!”

  7. Bit of interesting trivia to my friends Sedate Me and Avi, in case you ever find yourself on Jeopardy!
    Who was the only high-ranking Nazi ever to be excommunicated by the Catholic Church, and why?
    Answer: Joseph Goebbels. But not for being a murderous Nazi lying monster. The Catholics were completely down with that.
    He was excommunicated for marrying a Protestant.
    My god, the horror.
    I take a special interest in the European Theater during WWII, because my father was a member of a B-17 Flying Fortress heavy bomber crew. He flew 36 missions, making it a statistical long shot, similar to winning the lottery, that he survived.
    He was a widely read man, but he hated Kurt Vonnegut’s “Slaughterhouse Five,” since, in my father’s opinion, Vonnegut blamed the bomber crews for firebombing Dresden.
    As my father pointed out, he didn’t pick out the targets, the brass did. He could have refused, but the US Army would, of course, have shot him.
    My late father once said his only regret about bombing Dresden was that his bombs missed Vonnegut.
    Sorry, I’m starting to ramble like an old man. Where’s my goddman drink?

  8. Me too. Vonnegut’s apparent failure to understand the consequences of disobeying orders was a tiny thing compared to the hours of first-class reading he provided me.
    Of course, my father’s explanation for dropping bombs on civilians comes painfully close to the “obeying orders” defense offered after the war by the Nazis themselves.
    My father, certainly no Nazi sympathizer, felt the “following orders” defense wasn’t really so terrible. The alternative, after all, was the firing squad.

    • Remember when Kurt’s daughter married Geraldo Rivera? Vonnegut begged her not to do it and publicly called Geraldo all sorts of rotten (though accurate) names. Later, when the marriage broke up, he reiterated the list and added a few more.

  9. So basically, your human construct is better than those other human constructs you term fairy tales and everyone ought to abide by it.

    Furthermore, the statement, ” All morality is constructed by humans,” is an absolutely insupportable assertion. The first article of your own fairy tale faith, perhaps?

    • Aha! It rears its head.

      “All morality is constructed by humans,” is an absolutely insupportable assertion

      If it is not created by humans, then from whence it comes? (As if I didn’t know what you’re gonna say).
      Of course, your only alternative is a morality that exists independently of humans (I would expand morality to include any social animal. Various species have been shown to engage in what might be termed moral decision making, exhibited in such behaviour as altruism, sharing, assisting the weak, punishment for transgressions of the social order…some of which have been documented across species). Nevertheless, you are now arguing for an external right and wrong, which is a stunted load of horse cock, not to put too fine a point on it.

      My very human construct seeks to be consistent within certain logically connected premises which I take to be true. The first, “Do not do to others that which would be repulsive if done to you,” I have stated.
      Others include the right of the individual to be free in their thinking, expression and actions insofar as they do not harm or conflict with the free thought, expression and actions of others. On its face, this rules out the vast majority of religiously based moral principles.
      My principles can be reasonably extracted from that which tends to make people more rather than less happy, and upon which stable communities have historically been based. No social organization which attempted to deny these principles has survived. The slow but certain decline of religiosity, I believe, supports this view.

      Fairy tale faith? Comparing the basis for my moral code to that which relies on religious faith is simply more sophistry, and of a rather weak sort. I’m beginning to suspect you’re not a philosophy grad. Perhaps an undergrad.
      I posit nothing for which there is no evidence – no magical sky wizards, no heaven or hell, no violations of the laws of physics or nature. Quite the contrary, given that what is considered moral behaviour varies from culture to culture, as well as over time, that alone is fair evidence that morality is a human construct. Were it external, how would one explain such a variety in application?

      Your rather shallow attempt at Ray Comfort reasoning – “You can’t PROVE morality is constructed by humans…” can only proceed in one way. It’s much the same sort of argument that insists atheism is a religion. And of course turnabout is perfectly fair play: YOU can’t prove morality exists independently. So, given this impossibility of absolutely certainty regarding the genesis of morality, where does that leave us?
      Would you then argue that we need no morality? Some sort of childish Aleister Crowley crap – “Do what thou wilst’?
      If we do, in fact, require some sort of moral code to guide our interactions with others, on what basis do you prefer one external source over another? You must recognize that your preference for one religious book over another is simply an accident of geography and birth. That would seem a rather random way to set up a system…spinning the roulette wheel.

      While I appreciate (at least in theory) your attempt to play at philosophy, your argument is simply obtuse. It’s a critique based solely on a lack of absolute certainty of origin that offers no direction on how to approach the moral questions with which we are faced every day.

      Any morality that relies on the supernatural descends into an infinite regression. Occam’s razor deals efficiently with such propositions.
      And, yes, I do think my moral code is superior to others (a bit of vanity, that), and certainly to any that require grovelling before allegedly omnipotent imaginary gods.

  10. I was unaware of that. I cannot imagine a weirder mismatch. Why would anybody marry Geraldo?
    I wonder if Vonnegut lay awake nights wondering what he did wrong raising his daughter?
    Did he let Geraldo call him “Dad”?
    More to the point, why didn’t Kurt simply kill Geraldo? My only theory is that Geraldo used his mustache to deflect bullets. Yes, that has to be it.
    Now I have no choice but to have another drink.

  11. Since I enjoy nothing more than beating a dead horse, I have to point out that the story of Pope Pius XII celebrating Hitler’s birthday is almost certainly false.
    I can’t even find anyone who alleges it. An archbishop was accused of it, but the evidence is dodgy.
    You might want to check this site:
    I’ll grant that recent popes are as ethically foul as Hitler – how many Africans have died after being told not to use condoms?
    And the Catholic Church hasn’t exactly been a friend of the Jews.
    But we ought to at least be certain of our facts, or we lose the moral high ground when we point out our opponents are playing fast and loose with the truth.
    I can find no persuasive evidence that any pope ever celebrated Hitler’s birthday, at least not publicly.
    And modern-day Catholics certainly don’t make a habit of it.

    • I never said the pope celebrated Hitler’s birthday. I’m quite sure I said, generally, of the Catholic church, that they were “protectors of pedophiles” (about which there is no question) and “celebrators of Hitler’s birthday”.

      There would seem to be plenty of evidence to support the contention that the Vatican sought improved relations with the Reich, going so far as to open their records in order to assist in tracing genealogies with the goal of ferreting out Jews.

      Here’s some stuff:

      In 1939, four days after his elevation, Pope Pius XII sent a warm letter to Hitler saying he would do “all in Our power to establish harmonious relations between Church and State.” The new pope ordered an annual celebration of Hitler’s birthday. There was no opposition by the church to any Nazi policies. They cooperated by opening parish record books to determine the Aryan status of individuals.

      On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany” and added with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.”
      (Source: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

      On the occasion of Hitler’s 50th birthday, Cardinal Rarkowski, who was the spiritual head of the armed forces, wrote:
      “So let our gift to our Führer be the inner readiness for sacrifice and devotion to the Volk [the mystique of nationalism] … May our thanksgiving and our readiness to repay loyalty with loyalty find expression in the prayer … ‘Bless, O God, our Führer and Supreme Commander in all the tasks placed upon him.’”
      The Bavarian Catholic newspapers were also very enthusiastic about Hitler’s birthday. One adorned a full-page spread of birthday greetings with a photograph of the Führer in uniform.

  12. Given the above clarifications, your honor, I believe we are in complete agreement.
    I believe this calls for a drink.

  13. Legal or not, (and if it’s legal, it shouldn’t be) how can they get away with this kind of discriminatory bullshit and still be allowed to educate children as if they are preforming some public service or something?

    If it’s a private club, then it’s a private club. (But don’t private clubs have to let blacks, Jews, women etc in?) But if it’s a school, it should be a school. If it’s a school handing out a recognized diploma, shouldn’t there be some public accreditation thing where the school proves they are worthy of shaping young minds by providing a good curriculum and environment for learning? Free from, say, irrational discrimination like this?

    Otherwise, I might as well set up my own Private High School and…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: