S/O Restricting contact with bigot relatives/acquaintances

[ThatCyndiGirl]

A couple of people suggested spinning this off of another thread. I posted this Statement of Belief that I wrote for our family and it spurred further discussion:

 

Circle the Wagons

You were wrong, Friend, it IS time to circle the wagons.

There comes a time when a person figures out that there are those who would seek to hurt or even destroy the very fiber of what has been created. For me, that day is today.

Some groups have a Statement of Faith, for us, let’s call it a Statement of Belief. There are some basic beliefs that I have come to realize. They are as follows:

If you only wish to align yourself with those who believe exactly as you do, we are probably not going to be close friends.

If you only want people who look, live, think, talk and act exactly like what you are used to be around your children, then we probably won’t get along too well.

If you like spending your time trying to keep atheists, agnostics, Pagans, anyone who has a religion unlike yours or no religion at all, or homosexual, bisexual, transsexual from being around your children then we don’t have a lot in common. In fact, if you believe in such a way then our goals are actually at odds as I wish to expose my children to the beautiful, diverse society we enjoy rather than sequester them in a closet of “only like usâ€.

I have three rather impressionable minds here right now: a pre-schooler, a kindergartner and a high schooler. I simply cannot and WILL not allow their minds to be tainted with the evil of hate and bigotry.

[elizabeth]

:hurray:

[Paintedlady]

Sound more like a thinly veiled warning than a statement of belief. If I were in your circle of "friends" I'd consider myself warned and stay away. A little too angry for my liking.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Actually, my circle of friends understands it. It is my family of origin, however, who will not.

 

 

How is it a threat? I didn't write, "and if you dare contaminate my children with your hatred I shall hunt you down and kill you". :confused:

 

ETA: sorry, you wrote 'warning', I read 'threat'. Yeah, I guess it IS a warning. Our local homeschooling group is becoming MUCH more exclusive and hate-filled than I ever thought possible and it is really sad.

[HRAAB]

I asked this question in the other thread:

 

I like what you wrote but it brings up a question I've been struggling with for some time. There have been several times when a family didn't want their children interacting with mine or in my house for reasons that were very important to them - always connected with their religion and values. I remember feeling hurt and angry when it happened.

 

I now find myself in the same position. My girls are friends with the children of some families who have beliefs and values that I don't share. In fact, they are the opposite of what I want my children to learn. Do I limit contact altogether or just not let them go to their houses? Do I just keep my ears open and try to counter what they might hear? My almost 13 yr old dd I don't worry about so much since we discuss these things frequently, but even at that, she's come home sometimes with comments that I considered bigoted. My youngest two are very impressionable, though.

 

Until now I've never considered limiting friendships because of different religious beliefs or values, and I'm sort of shocked at myself for even thinking about it.

 

 

I'm not particularly religious. I'm trying to raise my children to pursue friendships irregardless of race, religion, or political leanings. Yet here I am considering whether I should be limiting a couple of friendships basically because of how these people vocally live out their religious beliefs. So I was wondering if other secular/non-religious people have handled this.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Well, for now it means they are not around families of origin, which is not much of an issue due to geography.

 

For the local homeschooling bigots it means that we don't hang around them.

 

We started a co-op made up of a diverse group of people, so they are NOT the issue at all. (in fact, many of us are outcasts from the local homeschooling group, the Band of Misfit Homeschoolers, I guess.)

[Parrothead]

A couple of people suggested spinning this off of another thread. I posted this Statement of Belief that I wrote for our family and it spurred further discussion:

 

Circle the Wagons

 

 

You were wrong, Friend, it IS time to circle the wagons.

 

There comes a time when a person figures out that there are those who would seek to hurt or even destroy the very fiber of what has been created. For me, that day is today.

 

Some groups have a Statement of Faith, for us, let’s call it a Statement of Belief. There are some basic beliefs that I have come to realize. They are as follows:

 

 

If you only wish to align yourself with those who believe exactly as you do, we are probably not going to be close friends.

 

If you only want people who look, live, think, talk and act exactly like what you are used to be around your children, then we probably won’t get along too well.

 

If you like spending your time trying to keep atheists, agnostics, Pagans, anyone who has a religion unlike yours or no religion at all, or homosexual, bisexual, transsexual from being around your children then we don’t have a lot in common. In fact, if you believe in such a way then our goals are actually at odds as I wish to expose my children to the beautiful, diverse society we enjoy rather than sequester them in a closet of “only like usâ€.

 

I have three rather impressionable minds here right now: a pre-schooler, a kindergartner and a high schooler. I simply cannot and WILL not allow their minds to be tainted with the evil of hate and bigotry.

Yes! Excellent post.

:cheers2:

 

 

But now that we know we feel the same way does that mean we can't be friends?

[HRAAB]

Well, for now it means they are not around families of origin, which is not much of an issue due to geography.

 

For the local homeschooling bigots it means that we don't hang around them.

 

We started a co-op made up of a diverse group of people, so they are NOT the issue at all. (in fact, many of us are outcasts from the local homeschooling group, the Band of Misfit Homeschoolers, I guess.)

 

Family isn't too much of a problem for us, excepting a couple of people. We've pretty much quit joining in with the local homeschooling groups except for the fact that my girls have friends that belong to these groups so sometimes we go to activities so they can see each other. But it's a couple of individual families that I'm thinking about moving away from. The last few times my dd has visited at their house, she has come home telling me things the parents have said that just make me cringe. She's good friends with these two girls, but I can see that most likely these problems are going to arise in their friendship as the girls get older. Maybe the friendships will just die a natural death? I still don't like her hearing that kind of stuff. My younger two I have kept home from the last couple of visits.

 

I wish I could find a few other misfits - I'm sure they're out there probably looking just like I am.

[Cricket]

Anyone is free to associate with whomever they wish. Doesn't bother me too much what standards parents use in reaching that decision for their children. It seems you only want people who reflect your values around your kids. So does everyone else and somehow it is a bad thing when others do it? :confused:

[Lovedtodeath]

It seems you only want people who reflect your values around your kids.

:iagree:

[Oney Jones]

Our local homeschooling group is becoming MUCH more exclusive and hate-filled than I ever thought possible and it is really sad.

 

 

Some groups tend to do that and it's hurtful and hateful. Our family ended up leaving a group because of the way the "governing committee" of the group reacted to a mom who is "universal unitarian." It just made my stomach cringe in disgust that these "godly women" could be so nasty to this young mom and her daughters.

 

I wouldn't have believed had I not seen and heard first hand how it all went down.

[HRAAB]

Anyone is free to associate with whomever they wish. Doesn't bother me too much what standards parents use in reaching that decision for their children. It seems you only want people who reflect your values around your kids. So does everyone else and somehow it is a bad thing when others do it? :confused:

 

I do want my children around people who reflect my values: honesty, integrity, respect. I really don't care if you're republican, democrat, libertarian, Evangelical Christian, LDS, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. I imagine we actually share many of the same goals and morals. What I'm talking about are parents who talk about certain family members going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus (according to their idea of accepting Jesus), or people who voted for Obama aren't godly and he's leading our country to hell (without having any idea who I voted for), or that gay people are an abomination in the eyes of God (and in one case suggested they should be incarcerated) in front of my children. I found out about that when my dd was looking up incarcerated in the dictionary. Someone might very well agree with one or all of these things, but why would anyone talk about such matters in front of someone else's children? Maybe this is more a matter of what's appropriate instead of values.

 

I've had people who I know didn't want to associate with me because I was Catholic and they were afraid of what their children might pick up in our house. I've known Catholics who didn't think I was Catholic enough. There was one mother who told me she couldn't let her children come to my house because I had Harry Potter books and wizard stuff. Yet, I would have never said anything in front of their children.

 

If I knew some family was involved in drugs, drank too much, was abusive, or had porn around, it would be a no-brainer. No way would I let my children go over there. I've known these two families for a long time, my children have known their children since they were toddlers. I'm sure if I talked to the parents (which honestly makes me very uncomfortable) that would end the friendship right there - that's because I do know them. So I need to decide if I limit their time together, or if I just talk to my girls when these matters arise. I've honestly never been faced with this before, and it's just plain hard.

 

These two families have become much more ...rigid... over the last several years. Or perhaps they've just become more vocal.

[LibraryLover]

I

Edited July 3, 2010 by LibraryLover

[Laurie4b]

See, the thing is, is that it is written to and about the "you" rather than being phrased as "We". That's why it doesn't seem like a statement of belief and does seem more like a warning. In fact, it reminds me of rules and consequences sheets that some people have hanging on their refrigerators that list misbehaviors and consequences in if-then statements.

 

"You were wrong"

"If you.. the we are not going to be close friends"

"If you.. then we won't get along"

"If you...then we won't have a lot in common"

 

Each time the consequence is a withdrawal of relationship.

 

What did you write this for anyway? Who is the "you"? What were you hoping to accomplish by writing this?

[Geek]

(For the purpose of giving an example some assumptions are going to need to be made, so I apologize in advance for any specific members of the sets I describe who might think I am not describing them. I am aware that there are individual differences and what statistical outliers are. :001_smile:)

 

Anyone is free to associate with whomever they wish. Doesn't bother me too much what standards parents use in reaching that decision for their children. It seems you only want people who reflect your values around your kids. So does everyone else and somehow it is a bad thing when others do it? :confused:

Technically you are correct, but only in one specific regard: each of the two "sides" wishes their children to associate with those who reflect family values. Each "side" uses the same algorithm: exclude those who do not reinforce our values. But the characteristic each side uses to separate the sheep from the goats are NOT the same, so I hold you are comparing apples to oranges. Tolerance and exclusivity are not equal and when used to separate acceptable from unacceptable, wide disparity results.

 

This is an essential, deep difference. Each of these two sides is plugging into that algorithm ("Exclude those who do not reinforce our values") very, very different things for the term "our values". Because of this, there is a huge disparity between the size of the resulting sets of people who are in each side's In Group.

 

Each family has its own set of beliefs and values that stem from them. Each family has an outside-the-family category into which they fit themselves whose members are "acceptable" and considered "positive influences". This is their In Group.

 

Now my generalizations for the sake of argument come in: Let's say there are two families who are representing the two "sides" here, shall we? Let Family A = pagan family beliefs, values tolerance. Let Family B = evangelical protestant family beliefs, values exclusivity. Although it might seem hyperbolic, I don't think it's a total stretch to imagine that Family B might also have high standards about what constitutes a Christian. (e.g. They might also exclude Mormons or even Catholics.)

 

Both families want to avoid being around people who do not line up with their most core belief, but this is where the essential differences-as-algorithm-input arise. Family A's core value = tolerance. Family B's core value = exclusivity.

 

Family A has an outside-the-family category that casts a very wide net. Their outside-the-family In Group set has many members in it that do not also fall into the set of pagans.

 

Family B has an outside-the family category that does NOT cast a very wide net. Their outside-the-family In Group set is nearly equal to those who are also Christian in the same sense they are Christian. In other words, there are very few (if any) members in the outside-the-family In Group that wouldn't also fall into their individual family's Christian belief set.

[Geek]

I do want my children around people who reflect my values: honesty, integrity, respect. I really don't care if you're republican, democrat, libertarian, Evangelical Christian, LDS, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. I imagine we actually share many of the same goals and morals. What I'm talking about are parents who talk about certain family members going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus (according to their idea of accepting Jesus), or people who voted for Obama aren't godly and he's leading our country to hell (without having any idea who I voted for), or that gay people are an abomination in the eyes of God (and in one case suggested they should be incarcerated) in front of my children. I found out about that when my dd was looking up incarcerated in the dictionary. Someone might very well agree with one or all of these things, but why would anyone talk about such matters in front of someone else's children? Maybe this is more a matter of what's appropriate instead of values.

 

I've had people who I know didn't want to associate with me because I was Catholic and they were afraid of what their children might pick up in our house. I've known Catholics who didn't think I was Catholic enough. There was one mother who told me she couldn't let her children come to my house because I had Harry Potter books and wizard stuff. Yet, I would have never said anything in front of their children.

 

If I knew some family was involved in drugs, drank too much, was abusive, or had porn around, it would be a no-brainer. No way would I let my children go over there. I've known these two families for a long time, my children have known their children since they were toddlers. I'm sure if I talked to the parents (which honestly makes me very uncomfortable) that would end the friendship right there - that's because I do know them. So I need to decide if I limit their time together, or if I just talk to my girls when these matters arise. I've honestly never been faced with this before, and it's just plain hard.

 

These two families have become much more ...rigid... over the last several years. Or perhaps they've just become more vocal.

Well said.

[Ravin]

Pretty much I take the same tack my mother alwasy did: you stay cordial, let the kids be friends on their own terms, and if something bothers you, talk about it afterward. My grandfather, who grew up in rural Arkansas, could be a major bigot. A number of times he made racist comments in front of us kids. Mom would talk about it with us afterward, explain why what he said was unacceptable and why he had such notions.

 

My grandma could be the same way, but had the sense not to say inappropriate things in front of us kids...I caught her out on her attitude when I visited her house right after I graduated high school and found my sophomore year prom pic (with me in an awful dress with my geeky Norwegian exchange student friend as a date) out in her front room while my senior prom pic (with a beautiful dress and a friend from work who happened to be black as my date) was relegated to the back bedroom. I switched the pics and politely gave grandma a piece of my mind.

 

Then I came out to her as gay, but that's another story, lol.

 

Seriously, in light of the idea that you want to be around all sorts of people, you should probably remember the words of Tom Lehrer: "I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that." Consider the irony of cutting someone out of your life because they disagree with your beliefs, when you believe in being around a diversity of people.

[Cricket]

(For the purpose of giving an example some assumptions are going to need to be made, so I apologize in advance for any specific members of the sets I describe who might think I am not describing them. I am aware that there are individual differences and what statistical outliers are. :001_smile:)

 

Technically you are correct, but only in one specific regard: each of the two "sides" wishes their children to associate with those who reflect family values. Each "side" uses the same algorithm: exclude those who do not reinforce our values. But the characteristic each side uses to separate the sheep from the goats are NOT the same, so I hold you are comparing apples to oranges. Tolerance and exclusivity are not equal and when used to separate acceptable from unacceptable, wide disparity results.

 

This is an essential, deep difference. Each of these two sides is plugging into that algorithm ("Exclude those who do not reinforce our values") very, very different things for the term "our values". Because of this, there is a huge disparity between the size of the resulting sets of people who are in each side's In Group.

 

Each family has its own set of beliefs and values that stem from them. Each family has an outside-the-family category into which they fit themselves whose members are "acceptable" and considered "positive influences". This is their In Group.

 

Now my generalizations for the sake of argument come in: Let's say there are two families who are representing the two "sides" here, shall we? Let Family A = pagan family beliefs, values tolerance. Let Family B = evangelical protestant family beliefs, values exclusivity. Although it might seem hyperbolic, I don't think it's a total stretch to imagine that Family B might also have high standards about what constitutes a Christian. (e.g. They might also exclude Mormons or even Catholics.)

 

Both families want to avoid being around people who do not line up with their most core belief, but this is where the essential differences-as-algorithm-input arise. Family A's core value = tolerance. Family B's core value = exclusivity.

 

Family A has an outside-the-family category that casts a very wide net. Their outside-the-family In Group set has many members in it that do not also fall into the set of pagans.

 

Family B has an outside-the family category that does NOT cast a very wide net. Their outside-the-family In Group set is nearly equal to those who are also Christian in the same sense they are Christian. In other words, there are very few (if any) members in the outside-the-family In Group that wouldn't also fall into their individual family's Christian belief set.

 

I see what you are saying, but you are assuming that tolerance or acceptance (that fits into your definition of acceptable, that is) is somehow the highest, best belief. Pagans who have tolerance for more beliefs are some how more moral than Christians who have a stricter standards of acceptability. I don't see how many you exclude with your standards makes one set of standards better than other. That's like saying the majority is right just because they are the majority. People having standards for their acquaintances doesn't bother me. Compared to some people we have fairly lax standards and, of course, compared to others we are way too rigid. (Can't please everyone! :)) I think it is more important how you treat those who disagree with you.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I do want my children around people who reflect my values: honesty, integrity, respect. I really don't care if you're republican, democrat, libertarian, Evangelical Christian, LDS, Catholic, Jehovah Witness, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever. I imagine we actually share many of the same goals and morals. What I'm talking about are parents who talk about certain family members going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus (according to their idea of accepting Jesus), or people who voted for Obama aren't godly and he's leading our country to hell (without having any idea who I voted for), or that gay people are an abomination in the eyes of God (and in one case suggested they should be incarcerated) in front of my children. I found out about that when my dd was looking up incarcerated in the dictionary. Someone might very well agree with one or all of these things, but why would anyone talk about such matters in front of someone else's children? Maybe this is more a matter of what's appropriate instead of values.

 

I've had people who I know didn't want to associate with me because I was Catholic and they were afraid of what their children might pick up in our house. I've known Catholics who didn't think I was Catholic enough. There was one mother who told me she couldn't let her children come to my house because I had Harry Potter books and wizard stuff. Yet, I would have never said anything in front of their children.

 

If I knew some family was involved in drugs, drank too much, was abusive, or had porn around, it would be a no-brainer. No way would I let my children go over there. I've known these two families for a long time, my children have known their children since they were toddlers. I'm sure if I talked to the parents (which honestly makes me very uncomfortable) that would end the friendship right there - that's because I do know them. So I need to decide if I limit their time together, or if I just talk to my girls when these matters arise. I've honestly never been faced with this before, and it's just plain hard.

 

These two families have become much more ...rigid... over the last several years. Or perhaps they've just become more vocal.

 

I guess this is what I was trying to say. I get what the other poster was saying about "they have their values, you have yours", but it goes deeper than that.

 

I want my kids to think that Catholics are also christian (because, quite frankly, we don't care what religion you are or are NOT), but many Catholic families can't hang around other xian families without the sense or outright statement of "you aren't xian like we are".

 

If I teach my kids that the lesbian lady next door (and they just know her as "Jane", not "Jane our lesbian neighbor") is just another neighbor who we love like all of our other neighbors then how does that negatively affect someone else's kid? But, if my kid is told at someone else's house that Jane is an abomination/should burn in hell/should be incarcerated/is the cause for all evil in the world, then NOW we have a huge problem.

 

I guess I see it this way: It is easier for their kids to be taught against our acceptance of other people than it would be for my kids to have that hate undone, kwim?

[Plucky]

 

 

Seriously, in light of the idea that you want to be around all sorts of people, you should probably remember the words of Tom Lehrer: "I know there are people in the world who do not love their fellow man, and I HATE people like that." Consider the irony of cutting someone out of your life because they disagree with your beliefs, when you believe in being around a diversity of people.

 

Well said. :iagree:

Edited July 3, 2010 by True Blue

[ThatCyndiGirl]

See, the thing is, is that it is written to and about the "you" rather than being phrased as "We". That's why it doesn't seem like a statement of belief and does seem more like a warning. In fact, it reminds me of rules and consequences sheets that some people have hanging on their refrigerators that list misbehaviors and consequences in if-then statements.

 

"You were wrong"

"If you.. the we are not going to be close friends"

"If you.. then we won't get along"

"If you...then we won't have a lot in common"

 

Each time the consequence is a withdrawal of relationship.

 

What did you write this for anyway? Who is the "you"? What were you hoping to accomplish by writing this?

 

 

Someone in my family came out recently. I looked around and realized that, as my kids grow, it seems like it becomes less about their physical safety and more about their emotional and intellectual safety.

 

It is not safe for my family to be around people who will spout stuff like, "homosexuals are the root cause of terrorism" (a politician in our area had the gall to utter such a phrase).

 

Why can't we get together and talk about curriculum or what place in the area has the best deal on karate lessons?

 

I don't open with "how do you feel about homosexuality/different religions/etc." but with evangelicals in the area it IS a big topic of discussion.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

Consider the irony of cutting someone out of your life because they disagree with your beliefs, when you believe in being around a diversity of people.

 

 

This is what gives me pause about the whole thing!

 

You wrote about, "and then I came out to my mother". THAT is precisely what prompted this.

 

I'm not saying, "if you don't believe like me then we can't be together". What I AM saying is that, "If you believe that it is so important to talk to my kids about:

 

people of colour being inferior

 

Catholics not being real xians (bothers me b/c I have Catholic friends and it just hurts me for them, if that makes any sense)

 

GLBT people are the cause of all evil and need to be eradicated/denied rights

 

THEN we have a problem. Does that make more sense? We know these people and will still see them here and there. We won't hushhushquicklycrosssthe street to avoid them, but we won't make playdates, either.

 

More clear?

 

Just like many of those families would not set up play dates with MY kids b/c they probably think I would wax philosophic about why gay people should be able to marry.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Sometime in the last 20? years the popular definition of tolerance has changed from allowing for other's free speech or views without persecution, to one of showing sympathy or acceptance of another's views. It isn't tolerance if you totally agree with another person - there is nothing to tolerate in that situation.

 

I guess I'm a dinosaur but I go with the old definition where you don't have to show sympathy or acceptance but still show a respect for the other person as a free citizen who has the right to different views, and practices than those I hold to. In that scenario, I don't get upset when I run into people with differing political or religious views at the water cooler or the family picnic. I also don't turn pale when someone shares an off-color joke or even says something racist, although I feel free to tell them that they need to get their mind out of the gutter or need to show respect to other human beings. I don't get upset if I share my views and someone doesn't embrace them. And I teach my children to show the same kind of respect for others while learning to discern the values and premises behind what other's say.

[Scarlett]

Anyone is free to associate with whomever they wish. Doesn't bother me too much what standards parents use in reaching that decision for their children. It seems you only want people who reflect your values around your kids. So does everyone else and somehow it is a bad thing when others do it? :confused:

 

Just what I was thinking.

 

And also, not everyone who believes a behavior is a sin is hate filled toward the sinner.

[Scarlett]

Sometime in the last 20? years the popular definition of tolerance has changed from allowing for other's free speech or views without persecution, to one of showing sympathy or acceptance of another's views. It isn't tolerance if you totally agree with another person - there is nothing to tolerate in that situation.

 

I guess I'm a dinosaur but I go with the old definition where you don't have to show sympathy or acceptance but still show a respect for the other person as a free citizen who has the right to different views, and practices than those I hold to. In that scenario, I don't get upset when I run into people with differing political or religious views at the water cooler or the family picnic. I also don't turn pale when someone shares an off-color joke or even says something racist, although I feel free to tell them that they need to get their mind out of the gutter or need to show respect to other human beings. I don't get upset if I share my views and someone doesn't embrace them. And I teach my children to show the same kind of respect for others while learning to discern the values and premises behind what other's say.

 

:iagree:

[AMDG]

Just what I was thinking.

 

And also, not everyone who believes a behavior is a sin is hate filled toward the sinner.

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

If I teach my kids that the lesbian lady next door (and they just know her as "Jane", not "Jane our lesbian neighbor") is just another neighbor who we love like all of our other neighbors then how does that negatively affect someone else's kid? But, if my kid is told at someone else's house that Jane is an abomination/should burn in hell/should be incarcerated/is the cause for all evil in the world, then NOW we have a huge problem.

 

These are two extreme reactions. If a parent believes an ACTION (drunkenness, sex outside of marriage, or any other practice) is a sin, would they not be neglecting their parental duties if they didn't attempt to keep their child free of such influence and/or to discuss the practice with their children? I teach my ds that sex outside of marriage is wrong and that homosexual sex is wrong, but I've NEVER filled him with hate toward ANY person.

 

So in your example above, Jane would probably not be my close friend neighbor. I would not be rude to her though. I would wave and smile and be kind and even ask her if she needed anything from the store. And if/when her practice of homosexuality came up, I would discuss with my child God's view of that practice. I wouldn't be throwing rocks through her window or gossiping to others about her.

[Harriet Vane]

Sometime in the last 20? years the popular definition of tolerance has changed from allowing for other's free speech or views without persecution, to one of showing sympathy or acceptance of another's views. It isn't tolerance if you totally agree with another person - there is nothing to tolerate in that situation.

 

I guess I'm a dinosaur but I go with the old definition where you don't have to show sympathy or acceptance but still show a respect for the other person as a free citizen who has the right to different views, and practices than those I hold to. In that scenario, I don't get upset when I run into people with differing political or religious views at the water cooler or the family picnic. I also don't turn pale when someone shares an off-color joke or even says something racist, although I feel free to tell them that they need to get their mind out of the gutter or need to show respect to other human beings. I don't get upset if I share my views and someone doesn't embrace them. And I teach my children to show the same kind of respect for others while learning to discern the values and premises behind what other's say.

 

:iagree: Well said.

[Lovedtodeath]

What I'm talking about are parents who talk about certain family members going to hell because they haven't accepted Jesus (according to their idea of accepting Jesus), or people who voted for Obama aren't godly and he's leading our country to hell (without having any idea who I voted for), or that gay people are an abomination in the eyes of God (and in one case suggested they should be incarcerated) in front of my children. I found out about that when my dd was looking up incarcerated in the dictionary. Someone might very well agree with one or all of these things, but why would anyone talk about such matters in front of someone else's children? Maybe this is more a matter of what's appropriate instead of values.

 

I've had people who I know didn't want to associate with me because I was Catholic and they were afraid of what their children might pick up in our house. I've known Catholics who didn't think I was Catholic enough. There was one mother who told me she couldn't let her children come to my house because I had Harry Potter books and wizard stuff. Yet, I would have never said anything in front of their children.

That is just the type of thing I get sick of and then because I am tired of it people are "concerned" about me. :glare:

 

This is what gives me pause about the whole thing!

 

You wrote about, "and then I came out to my mother". THAT is precisely what prompted this.

 

I'm not saying, "if you don't believe like me then we can't be together". What I AM saying is that, "If you believe that it is so important to talk to my kids about:

 

people of colour being inferior

 

Catholics not being real xians (bothers me b/c I have Catholic friends and it just hurts me for them, if that makes any sense)

 

GLBT people are the cause of all evil and need to be eradicated/denied rights

 

THEN we have a problem. Does that make more sense? We know these people and will still see them here and there. We won't hushhushquicklycrosssthe street to avoid them, but we won't make playdates, either.

 

More clear?

Yes, better. Thank you.

 

And also, not everyone who believes a behavior is a sin is hate filled toward the sinner.

:iagree:

 

I don't see it as trying to only let those who think like you to be a part of your kids' world-- It sounds like you're tired of dealing with small minded people.

:iagree:Yes, with further explanations I can see that.

[MyThreeSons]

I personally detest bigotry. I don't like being labeled a bigot just because I choose to homeschool my children thru a co-op which requires a statement of faith be signed by participating families. I happen to agree with the SOF; if I didn't, I would cheerfully recognize their right to have such a statement and go on my way.

 

It is the best option available to my family. I don't have the time or energy to establish an inclusive group. If I knew of one, I would consider having my students attend, provided the academics were up to snuff. My sons have friends of differing faiths, ethnic backgrounds, political persuasions, schooling methods, etc. I do not isolate them from people who are different from us.

[Scarlett]

My sons have friends of differing faiths, ethnic backgrounds, political persuasions, schooling methods, etc. I do not isolate them from people who are different from us.

 

Isolate is a pretty severe measure.....I am not close friends with many people that I don't necessarily 'isolate' myself from.

[Mrs Mungo]

I don't open with "how do you feel about homosexuality/different religions/etc." but with evangelicals in the area it IS a big topic of discussion.

 

I think this is a big part of the problem. I'm an evangelical Christian. I go to church, I have a regular volunteer job in the church. However, I have a real problem with people thinking I'm going to agree with every hateful thing that comes out of their mouth. I NEVER had one of my liberal friends musing over ways to assassinate the president. I *have* had that happen in CHURCH.

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I personally detest bigotry. I don't like being labeled a bigot just because I choose to homeschool my children thru a co-op which requires a statement of faith be signed by participating families. I happen to agree with the SOF; if I didn't, I would cheerfully recognize their right to have such a statement and go on my way.

 

It is the best option available to my family. I don't have the time or energy to establish an inclusive group. If I knew of one, I would consider having my students attend, provided the academics were up to snuff. My sons have friends of differing faiths, ethnic backgrounds, political persuasions, schooling methods, etc. I do not isolate them from people who are different from us.

 

 

FTR, the first co-op we attended had a statement of faith. I told the director that we were not religious, but I saw no reason (and had no interest in) trying to talk anybody out of their religion, child or adult. She was fine with that. (sort of like what one pp said in the SOF thread, "we don't mind if you are christian if you don't mind if we're not". I paraphrased.)

 

She knew that I wasn't agreeing with everything they held dear, just that I agreed that they had a right to state it, more or less.

 

All that to say, I am NOT saying that anyone is a bigot because they sign a statement of faith. I signed one with the intention/belief/agreement that I stated above.

 

I have xian friends who believe that homosexuality is wrong, but they are nice enough to not say it over and over and over again. They believe that, I get it. They know that I believe that GLBT people should have the right to marry. I, in turn, don't feel the need to talk about it/debate it with them. What's the point? We are not likely to change each other's mind. Instead we talk about co-op stuff or homeschooling stuff, or.....most of the time: knitting.

 

I'm not talking about people like that. I'm talking about the more extreme families who feel the need to constantly send AFA updates and the like. Fine, if you don't want to shop there because that store pushes diversity for all of it's employees/customers, then don't shop there, but I hear it over and over and over again. Ugh. :glare:

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I think this is a big part of the problem. I'm an evangelical Christian. I go to church, I have a regular volunteer job in the church. However, I have a real problem with people thinking I'm going to agree with every hateful thing that comes out of their mouth. I NEVER had one of my liberal friends musing over ways to assassinate the president. I *have* had that happen in CHURCH.

 

 

THAT is what I'm talking about. I grew up in the Evangelical xian community. I heard James Dobson/Pat Robertson spouting off daily. I know/understand where the fundies get this from, I do. I read a good quote recently that went something like,"Jesus said that they will know us by our love, not by our strong stance on divisive social issues".

 

I think it was in, "Love is an Orientation" by Andrew Marin. He is a heterosexual man who started a ministry for the GLBT community, but it is NOT a "here, let's show you how you can CHANGE'', it's "let me show you love and acceptance".

 

What a concept! :001_smile:

 

I find it interesting that religious people feel the "need" to spout off about how bad homosexuality is, but I don't see a lot of people going up to gluttons at buffets waxing on and on about how bad the sin of gluttony is? :confused:

[Jean in Newcastle]

I think this is a big part of the problem. I'm an evangelical Christian. I go to church, I have a regular volunteer job in the church. However, I have a real problem with people thinking I'm going to agree with every hateful thing that comes out of their mouth. I NEVER had one of my liberal friends musing over ways to assassinate the president. I *have* had that happen in CHURCH.

 

I've heard a little bit of that (from both sides of the political divide at different times). None of those people are people I choose to befriend. I have no problem with telling someone that while I don't mind in certain contexts a good objective debate, I do not like to hear that kind of speech because it doesn't promote dialog and certainly is not respectful of others. Sometimes I actually agree with the underlying position of the person speaking but I do not agree with speech that is demeaning and even foolish because it is so over-the-top in its views.

 

If I'm talking to someone like that and they don't back down at all, I walk away. If it is one or two people in a larger group then I have no problem just avoiding them. If it were more prevalent than that in a group, I would not continue to participate in the group. Perhaps I am fortunate in that no one in my family or dh's family engages in that kind of speech.

[Mrs Mungo]

I find it interesting that religious people feel the "need" to spout off about how bad homosexuality is, but I don't see a lot of people going up to gluttons at buffets waxing on and on about how bad the sin of gluttony is? :confused:

 

We have a joke in our family that, "all sins are the same, well...except homosexuality, that is particularly bad." Understand, my family is full of theology degrees and pastors and most of them don't actually feel that way.

[Lovedtodeath]

I like what you wrote but it brings up a question I've been struggling with for some time. There have been several times when a family didn't want their children interacting with mine or in my house for reasons that were very important to them - always connected with their religion and values. I remember feeling hurt and angry when it happened.

 

I now find myself in the same position. My girls are friends with the children of some families who have beliefs and values that I don't share. In fact, they are the opposite of what I want my children to learn. Do I limit contact altogether or just not let them go to their houses? Do I just keep my ears open and try to counter what they might hear? My almost 13 yr old dd I don't worry about so much since we discuss these things frequently, but even at that, she's come home sometimes with comments that I considered bigoted. My youngest two are very impressionable, though.

 

Until now I've never considered limiting friendships because of different religious beliefs or values, and I'm sort of shocked at myself for even thinking about it.

Janet, I am limiting the time that my children spend with people who are judgmental. If nothing else I think it is very confusing for them. My children happen to spend very little time with either set of grandparents because of problems I have with this. :( It is hard to find any friends, really and is rather isolating. We do have one family that seems to share our values though. I am sorry, this is not a secular viewpoint. I am a Christian, though lately I have been trying to figure out how best I can go about being one. Edited July 3, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[ThatCyndiGirl]

I've heard a little bit of that (from both sides of the political divide at different times). None of those people are people I choose to befriend. I have no problem with telling someone that while I don't mind in certain contexts a good objective debate, I do not like to hear that kind of speech because it doesn't promote dialog and certainly is not respectful of others. Sometimes I actually agree with the underlying position of the person speaking but I do not agree with speech that is demeaning and even foolish because it is so over-the-top in its views.

 

If I'm talking to someone like that and they don't back down at all, I walk away. If it is one or two people in a larger group then I have no problem just avoiding them. If it were more prevalent than that in a group, I would not continue to participate in the group. Perhaps I am fortunate in that no one in my family or dh's family engages in that kind of speech.

 

 

Yeah, I welcome debate along the lines of, "I don't like how the President has handled X matter". THAT I can understand. We are all free to criticize the President for his handling of whatever issue, but the death threats and racist remarks are more than just out of line. They are downright appalling. And every. single. time I say something I hear, "but when Bush was President ppl criticized him, too". Yes, people did. I was one of them. But, I was not issuing death threats/hopes that he would be killed/racist remarks.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

 

We started a co-op made up of a diverse group of people, so they are NOT the issue at all. (in fact, many of us are outcasts from the local homeschooling group, the Band of Misfit Homeschoolers, I guess.)

 

 

This is what we need here. We don't fit in here at all, but we are happy and full of love, so that's what matters. :D

[Geek]

I think it is more important how you treat those who disagree with you.

So volume isn't an issue on the "how you treat those who disagree with you" front? How about treating those who disagree with you, with respect vs. excluding them? Is that not an issue?

 

Officially excluding people is, by my definition, disrespectful and mean. (I am thinking of that part of the Christian community seeking to create their own subculture: a "Christian ghetto", if you will.) Many, many assumptions are made from the outset. A statement of faith is a perfect example of this as it is based upon assumptions about anyone who isn't willing to sign it; it isn't based upon after-the-fact, proven offenses. Another difference I see between Family A types and Family B types is this: People who value inclusiveness often do not exclude someone from their circle until after an offense. By contrast, people who value exclusiveness often exclude people from their circle from the outset, based upon definitions like what their religion is or isn't.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Geek

[Quiver0f10]

..

Edited July 4, 2010 by Quiver0f10

[jewellsmommy]

Well, for now it means they are not around families of origin, which is not much of an issue due to geography.

 

For the local homeschooling bigots it means that we don't hang around them.

 

We started a co-op made up of a diverse group of people, so they are NOT the issue at all. (in fact, many of us are outcasts from the local homeschooling group, the Band of Misfit Homeschoolers, I guess.)

 

 

I guess it depends on how you group/define those you consider bigots. I agree that it is poor taste to "shelter" children from those with different pov's, lifestyles, beliefs, what have you. The exposure to a variety of people brings the opportunity for me, as a Christian, to teach Christ like love, patience, service, and understanding of the people around her and that there are endless varieties of belief and thoughts.

 

However, I do not permit people with radically different views to be in formal educational authority over my dd where those views could be intertwined into the education. I do not believe that this conducive to her upbringing at this season in her development. Would you consider this bigoted? My way/method certainly does not come from hatred or even intolorence but from the belief that this is the best way to educate my child. Don't confuse this with what she will be taught either. Who teaches her and what she is taught are 2 different things.

 

Now a question,

If you look at person x who has said "I don't want my dc around people that are y or z. And you deem person x as bigoted or intolerant because they limit their exposure from a type of person. And you don't want them around your dc, then didn't you just do the same thing as person x!

 

If someone's view qualifies them as narrow/intolerant/bigoted and you decide that your dc are better off not being around them, then are you not doing exactly the same thing. Are you not making a judgement that person x should not be around your children because of their belief. The same way that person x decided that people y and z should not be around their dc.

 

I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I am just saying that it is all our prerogatives to decide the level of exposure for our dc. Bigot is a strong accusation to toss around just because you don't parent the same way as someone else.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I don't participate in homeschool groups - esp. where there is teaching like in a co-op, so problems there are not something I personally relate to. I do not delegate well at all - and that includes other homeschoolers!

 

I really can't imagine a situation where someone else would tell me or my kids how to think about an issue or other people. We socialize with a wide range of people and at times I've had good discussions about topics with other moms but the kids were never interested. Now that he's a teen, ds13 will discuss things with me but as far as I know, it hasn't come up with his teen friends.

 

My dd does teach some neighborhood kids about God but the kids have asked her questions on their own and I cleared it with the mom before anything ever was said. Even then the kids are of course able to respond to what she says however they want. (I specifically said teach because she goes over a little booklet with them.) She doesn't bring it up with kids who are not interested.

[jewellsmommy]

So volume isn't an issue on the "how you treat those who disagree with you" front? How about treating those who disagree with you, with respect vs. excluding them? Is that not an issue?

 

Officially excluding people is, by my definition, disrespectful and mean. (I am thinking of that part of the Christian community seeking to create their own subculture: a "Christian ghetto", if you will.) Many, many assumptions are made from the outset. A statement of faith is a perfect example of this as it is based upon assumptions about anyone who isn't willing to sign it; it isn't based upon after-the-fact, proven offenses. Another difference I see between Family A types and Family B types is this: People who value inclusiveness often do not exclude someone from their circle until after an offense. By contrast, people who value exclusiveness often exclude people from their circle from the outset, based upon definitions like what their religion is or isn't.

 

 

I think the problem is the assumption that SOF are specifically designed to exclude people. That is not the purpose. The purpose is for all involved to agree that these are the ground rules we will all play by. Without this, tell me how would a co-op group pick curriculum and scope and sequence. If you have an athiest and a christian with different goals in mind then what. The group erupts into chaos as everyone chooses a side!

 

If you have ever signed a user agreement for software, it is the same. You agree, up front, to play by their rules. If you don't like their rules then move on but they are not designed to exclude. They are not being mean or disrespectful.

 

The statement of belief that started this post fully admits to limiting friends based on a lack of acceptance of her beliefs but people are applauding this and slamming other groups with SOF. What is with the double standard there? What about the woman (smart mamma?) who started the secular thursday blog and linked that to the roll call. Is that not a statement of belief that limits who participates.

[Guest Cindie2dds]

I think the problem is the assumption that SOF are specifically designed to exclude people. That is not the purpose.

 

Sadly, some are specifically designed to do just that. Our local homeschool group SOF is specifically written to exclude anyone who is not evangelical. Catholics, LDS, even some other Protestants couldn't sign the SOF. Unfortunately, the groups is very large with great activities and field trips. We do our own thing.

[HRAAB]

Janet, I am limiting the time that my children spend with people who are judgmental. If nothing else I think it is very confusing for them. My children happen to spend very little time with either set of grandparents because of problems I have with this. :( It is hard to find any friends, really and is rather isolating. We do have one family that seems to share our values though. I am sorry, this is not a secular viewpoint. I am a Christian, though lately I have been trying to figure out how best I can go about being one.

 

Even though I very much on the outside of religion, I still go to church every week with my family. I listen, and I try to apply what I hear, not how Christians understand it, but how I understand it right now. So anyway, tonight at church the sermon is about spreading God's kingdom here on earth. I'm thinking... God's kingdom. Heaven. Spread heaven on earth. Means I have to live like it's heaven. Oops! There's going to be a wide variety of personalities in heaven: loud, quiet, aggressive, shy, different races, religions (this is my interpretation). If I can't live with them here, how am I going to manage in heaven. Okay, I know that many people would tell me I don't need to worry about heaven unless I change my beliefs, but just to make my point. Assuming I'm in heaven, not everyone is going to be just like me. So, I better learn how to get along with these people right now. Geez! could it get any harder?

 

So sitting there in the pew I resolve to continue to let my children visit their friends. I will talk with my dd before she goes to their house, and then we'll talk when she gets home. I won't like everything I hear, some of it I will really not like, but this is practicing for heaven. Everything okay.

 

I get out of church, come home, cook dinner, and already I've lost my motivation. I really don't want to be around them nor have my girls around them. It's been a couple of hours and already I've failed.

 

I haven't been to confession in a long time (Catholic here), but I've thought if I ever go again, I'm going to say, "Father, I start every morning with a commitment to love like Christ, and by 10:00 AM, I've totally bombed." I know, I know, original sin, weakened nature and all that.

 

I don't want to exclude people just because we see things differently, I don't want to hurt anyone, I want to make room for them to sit with us. I'm a dreamer, and sometimes reality just gets me down.

 

Anyway, I hear what you're saying.

[Guest rubilynne4]

I guess it depends on how you group/define those you consider bigots. I agree that it is poor taste to "shelter" children from those with different pov's, lifestyles, beliefs, what have you. The exposure to a variety of people brings the opportunity for me, as a Christian, to teach Christ like love, patience, service, and understanding of the people around her and that there are endless varieties of belief and thoughts.

 

However, I do not permit people with radically different views to be in formal educational authority over my dd where those views could be intertwined into the education. I do not believe that this conducive to her upbringing at this season in her development. Would you consider this bigoted? My way/method certainly does not come from hatred or even intolorence but from the belief that this is the best way to educate my child. Don't confuse this with what she will be taught either. Who teaches her and what she is taught are 2 different things.

 

Now a question,

If you look at person x who has said "I don't want my dc around people that are y or z. And you deem person x as bigoted or intolerant because they limit their exposure from a type of person. And you don't want them around your dc, then didn't you just do the same thing as person x!

 

If someone's view qualifies them as narrow/intolerant/bigoted and you decide that your dc are better off not being around them, then are you not doing exactly the same thing. Are you not making a judgement that person x should not be around your children because of their belief. The same way that person x decided that people y and z should not be around their dc.

 

I am not trying to be snarky or difficult. I am just saying that it is all our prerogatives to decide the level of exposure for our dc. Bigot is a strong accusation to toss around just because you don't parent the same way as someone else.

:iagree:

[scrappyhappymama]

If I knew some family was involved in drugs, drank too much, was abusive, or had porn around, it would be a no-brainer. No way would I let my children go over there.

 

The Bible is pretty explicit in condemning homosexuality, along with other moral sins:

 

1Co 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Obviously, not everyone accepts the Bible literally or completely, or even acknowledges it as God's will, or accepts the existence of God to begin with. Inevitably, where a person falls along this belief system is going to strongly influence their reaction to verses like these. I can intellectually appreciate that someone who does not believe in the God of the bible would reject these verses outright, or that they could actually serve as justification for contempt toward such a god ("What kind of God would condemn such folks?" etc).

 

For a Christian who believes in the Bible strictly, it would be inconsistent to recognize say, drunkeness as a condemned behavior, but not the practice of homosexuality. As parents, we all have to determine what level of exposure we are comfortable allowing for our young children. This should not be construed to be necessarily an issue of bigotry rather than a moral stand. In the quote above, a previous poster drew the line at exposure to drunkeness and violence and sexually explicit materials. Another may decide not to send their kids to the home of a homosexual couple, or a family who cheats on their taxes, or who are steeped in their material possessions without generosity to others. As parents, we have to make judgments about what moral behaviors we personally find acceptable or not and to what point we choose to shield our children from behaviors that do not align with our own values.

 

Choosing not to expose children early on to questionable moral behaviors does not have to equate to raising intolerant bigots. In an overly simplified manner- it is somewhat like choosing to ground them first in our own faith and values, and then as they grow and mature, help them to learn to interact peaceably and lovingly with folks who adhere to a different set of standards.

 

For example, my husband and I may choose to socialize with friends and family at a celebration that includes overt alcohol consumption, but leave the kids at home. Just because we do not drink socially, we don't refuse to associate with friends or family who do, but it also does not mean we want to expose our children to that environment while they are yet so young and impressionable. Obviously, families who see nothing wrong with imbibing would see it much differently.

 

Taking a moral stance, especially on behalf of our own children, should not be equated with bigotry in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think many Christians bring this on themselves with their own inconsistencies. If they refuse to attend a family function with uncle George and his partner, but raise no objection to cousin Susie and her live-in-boyfriend and brother-in-law Tom cheating on his wife, then yeah, they open themselves to singling out one type of sin as worse than another when the only differences are gender or marital status.

 

It is certainly a difficult balance to achieve- instilling the values we hold dear in our children, but teaching them to demonstrate love and respect to folks with differing faiths and values.

 

I can appreciate the OP's position and her desire to make a stand for values that are important to her. I can understand that the stance that the folks she is distancing herself from is morally repugnant from her perspective as well. However, I don't see how it advances the cause of tolerance to assign evil motive to those we disagree with.

 

ETA: I started writing this several hours ago and just was able to come back to it, so please excuse if the conversation has turned since then. I see several more pages now! Off to read what I've missed.

Edited July 4, 2010 by scrappyhappymama

[MyThreeSons]

Yeah, I welcome debate along the lines of, "I don't like how the President has handled X matter". THAT I can understand. We are all free to criticize the President for his handling of whatever issue, but the death threats and racist remarks are more than just out of line. They are downright appalling. And every. single. time I say something I hear, "but when Bush was President ppl criticized him, too". Yes, people did. I was one of them. But, I was not issuing death threats/hopes that he would be killed/racist remarks.

 

We are in agreement here. My family has run into misunderstandings (polite way of saying it) because we teach our children that it is unscriptural for anyone to, for example, make jokes about or speak in a disrespectful manner about those in authority over us. This includes a President with whom we may disagree politically. My son speaking up against such unwholesome talk was taken as politically supporting said authority, which wasn't the case, and which, in my opinion, would not necessarily make one a non-Christian. While my faith strongly influences many of my political beliefs, I can see where others may honestly come to a different conclusion based upon that same faith. This is a VERY rare conclusion in my experience.

[Guest rubilynne4]

The Bible is pretty explicit in condemning homosexuality, along with other moral sins:

 

1Co 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Obviously, not everyone accepts the Bible literally or completely, or even acknowledges it as God's will, or accepts the existence of God to begin with. Inevitably, where a person falls along this belief system is going to strongly influence their reaction to verses like these. I can intellectually appreciate that someone who does not believe in the God of the bible would reject these verses outright, or that they could actually serve as justification for contempt toward such a god ("What kind of God would condemn such folks?" etc).

 

For a Christian who believes in the Bible strictly, it would be inconsistent to recognize say, drunkeness as a condemned behavior, but not the practice of homosexuality. As parents, we all have to determine what level of exposure we are comfortable allowing for our young children. This should not be construed to be necessarily an issue of bigotry rather than a moral stand. In the quote above, a previous poster drew the line at exposure to drunkeness and violence and sexually explicit materials. Another may decide not to send their kids to the home of a homosexual couple, or a family who cheats on their taxes, or who are steeped in their material possessions without generosity to others. As parents, we have to make judgments about what moral behaviors we personally find acceptable or not and to what point we choose to shield our children from behaviors that do not align with our own values.

 

Choosing not to expose children early on to questionable moral behaviors does not have to equate to raising intolerant bigots. In an overly simplified manner- it is somewhat like choosing to ground them first in our own faith and values, and then as they grow and mature, help them to learn to interact peaceably and lovingly with folks who adhere to a different set of standards.

 

For example, my husband and I may choose to socialize with friends and family at a celebration that includes overt alcohol consumption, but leave the kids at home. Just because we do not drink socially, we don't refuse to associate with friends or family who do, but it also does not mean we want to expose our children to that environment while they are yet so young and impressionable. Obviously, families who see nothing wrong with imbibing would see it much differently.

 

Taking a moral stance, especially on behalf of our own children, should not be equated with bigotry in my opinion. Unfortunately, I think many Christians bring this on themselves with their own inconsistencies. If they refuse to attend a family function with uncle George and his partner, but raise no objection to cousin Susie and her live-in-boyfriend and brother-in-law Tom cheating on his wife, then yeah, they open themselves to singling out one type of sin as worse than another when the only differences are gender or marital status.

 

It is certainly a difficult balance to achieve- instilling the values we hold dear in our children, but teaching them to demonstrate love and respect to folks with differing faiths and values.

 

I can appreciate the OP's position and her desire to make a stand for values that are important to her. I can understand that the stance that the folks she is distancing herself from is morally repugnant from her perspective as well. However, I don't see how it advances the cause of tolerance to assign evil motive to those we disagree with.

 

ETA: I started writing this several hours ago and just was able to come back to it, so please excuse if the conversation has turned since then. I see several more pages now! Off to read what I've missed.

:iagree: