HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Church denies First Commu...

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:19 PM

Church denies First Communion to fashion-loving girl because she wanted to wear a suit

Source: Washington Post

Church denies First Communion to fashion-loving girl because she wanted to wear a suit

By Julie Zauzmer October 12 at 12:34 PM

Cady Mansell has always had a strong sense of fashion. At 9 years old, she likes trying on makeup and painting her nails. She likes shopping trips to Chicago with her fashion-conscious mother. And since she asked for her first bow tie during one of those trips to the mall when she was just 4 years old, Cady has had a thing for snazzy suits.

When it came time for her First Communion, a major event for Cady, she naturally started thinking early about what she wanted to wear on the big day. She settled on a brand-new all-white suit.

“It kind of sparkles in the sunlight,” she enthused when she tried it on.

But then word got out at her Catholic school about Cady’s planned attire. School officials told Cady’s parents that she couldn’t participate in First Communion with the rest of her class unless she wore a skirt or dress. When the Mansells dug in their heels, insisting that their daughter should wear the outfit she had picked out for her special day, the argument escalated quickly — to the point that the Mansells pulled their daughters out of the school and the church altogether.

-snip-


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/10/12/church-denies-first-communion-to-fashion-loving-girl-because-she-wanted-to-wear-a-suit/

98 replies, 4682 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 98 replies Author Time Post
Reply Church denies First Communion to fashion-loving girl because she wanted to wear a suit (Original post)
Eugene Oct 12 OP
guillaumeb Oct 12 #1
Lordquinton Oct 12 #4
guillaumeb Oct 12 #5
Lordquinton Oct 12 #6
guillaumeb Oct 12 #24
Lordquinton Oct 12 #41
guillaumeb Oct 13 #49
Lordquinton Oct 13 #68
guillaumeb Oct 13 #71
Lordquinton Oct 13 #72
guillaumeb Oct 14 #73
Lordquinton Oct 18 #98
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #8
guillaumeb Oct 12 #25
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #28
guillaumeb Oct 12 #29
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #33
guillaumeb Oct 12 #34
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #39
guillaumeb Oct 13 #50
Angry Dragon Oct 13 #57
guillaumeb Oct 13 #58
Angry Dragon Oct 13 #59
guillaumeb Oct 13 #60
Angry Dragon Oct 13 #61
guillaumeb Oct 13 #63
Angry Dragon Oct 13 #65
Lordquinton Oct 12 #42
guillaumeb Oct 13 #51
Lordquinton Oct 13 #67
guillaumeb Oct 13 #70
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #9
Lordquinton Oct 12 #19
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #21
Lordquinton Oct 12 #23
guillaumeb Oct 12 #31
Lordquinton Oct 12 #43
trotsky Oct 13 #47
guillaumeb Oct 13 #54
Lordquinton Oct 13 #66
guillaumeb Oct 13 #69
trotsky Oct 13 #46
guillaumeb Oct 13 #53
trotsky Oct 13 #64
Angry Dragon Oct 15 #74
guillaumeb Oct 15 #75
Angry Dragon Oct 15 #78
guillaumeb Oct 16 #84
Cuthbert Allgood Oct 16 #86
Angry Dragon Oct 16 #91
guillaumeb Oct 16 #92
Angry Dragon Oct 16 #93
guillaumeb Oct 16 #94
Angry Dragon Oct 16 #95
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #7
guillaumeb Oct 12 #26
TexasProgresive Oct 12 #22
guillaumeb Oct 12 #27
MineralMan Oct 13 #48
AtheistCrusader Oct 15 #81
guillaumeb Oct 16 #85
AtheistCrusader Oct 16 #87
guillaumeb Oct 16 #88
AtheistCrusader Oct 16 #89
guillaumeb Oct 16 #90
AtheistCrusader Oct 17 #96
guillaumeb Oct 17 #97
LisaM Oct 12 #2
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #10
LisaM Oct 12 #12
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #13
LisaM Oct 12 #14
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #15
LisaM Oct 12 #17
Lordquinton Oct 12 #3
Angry Dragon Oct 12 #11
Lordquinton Oct 12 #20
ClarendonDem Oct 12 #35
Lordquinton Oct 12 #44
Doreen Oct 12 #16
LisaM Oct 12 #18
Doreen Oct 12 #45
LisaM Oct 13 #52
Doreen Oct 13 #55
LisaM Oct 13 #56
McCamy Taylor Oct 12 #30
guillaumeb Oct 12 #32
ClarendonDem Oct 12 #36
Irish_Dem Oct 12 #37
Not Ruth Oct 12 #38
Iggo Oct 12 #40
RKP5637 Oct 15 #76
Iggo Oct 15 #80
lunasun Oct 13 #62
50 Shades Of Blue Oct 15 #77
Act_of_Reparation Oct 16 #82
50 Shades Of Blue Oct 16 #83
left-of-center2012 Oct 15 #79

Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:22 PM

1. From the article:

At the school, St. John the Evangelist in St. John, Ind., an official, who asked The Washington Post not to publish her name because she didn’t make the decision to ban Cady’s suit, said that the school simply couldn’t bend its dress code to suit Cady’s style.

“We have a dress code in place for our school. We consistently enforce that,” she said. “Oftentimes you’ll get somebody who wants to wear sneakers instead of dress shoes, or a purple shirt instead of a white shirt.”


The first question is, does the institution have a legal right to impose a dress code?

Second, could an exception have been made, and have exceptions been made in the past?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:30 PM

4. Are the boys allowed to wear suits?

If so then she's not really in violation. Unless of course it's an intolerant code based on outdated gender roles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:37 PM

5. If the dress regulations are specific, you might research it.

But I actually asked if the institution has a legal right to impose dress codes. If you feel that no institution has the legal right to specific dress codes, you can make that argument.

Good luck with that battle.

To your question, based on the action of the church, yes, she would be in apparent violation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:53 PM

6. And you again didn't speak to my question

Interesting that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #6)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:51 PM

24. Your question has no relevance to the issue.

Which might explain why you have ignored my questions that were posed to you.

Interesting indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:00 PM

41. Yes, I ignored your deflections

My questions are more than relevant, they point to the intolerance of the RCC, why do you dodge them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #41)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:07 PM

49. Your questions are the deflections.

Given your position here, I understand your desire, your need, to deflect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #49)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:34 PM

68. Nice retort

Why does it seem so familiar?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #68)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:03 PM

71. Possibly because you do not wish to admit that the institution is correct?

I might disagree with the rule, but I am not the one who makes the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #71)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:48 PM

72. So they are correct in their intolerance?

You think they aren't wrong here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #72)

Sat Oct 14, 2017, 12:34 PM

73. Still avoiding the issue?

I understand.

Is the Army intolerant for having sex specific uniforms?

Is the USPS?

I will patiently await your answers, plural, to my original question, and these following questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #73)

Wed Oct 18, 2017, 12:32 AM

98. You first

In your own time, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #5)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:16 PM

8. Gender based dress code .............. BAD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #8)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:52 PM

25. Argue with the institution.

The Post Office allows women to purchase skirts, but not the men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #25)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:55 PM

28. the discussion was about narrow minded catholics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:59 PM

29. The discussion was about many things.

Including the right of private institutions, and public ones, to set rules.

Are you an anarchist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:03 PM

33. If thnking that a fine young girl should be allowed to wear a nice white pants suit

to her First Communion then I am the biggest anarchist the world will ever see


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:05 PM

34. You missed the actual point.

The point about institutions and rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:38 PM

39. No I didn't

Do we need rules?? ....... yes
Are all rules good?? ........ no
Should stupid rules be pointed out?? ....... yes

Here we have a young girl taking her First Communion, her first steps on the path to her adult relationship with her god.
Should she have the right to face her god in the manner in which she chooses?? ............. I say yes
She honored her father and mother by asking them if was okay. I believe that is one of the Ten Commandments.

Please explain what rule she was breaking in wanting to face her god, with her faith and belief, in wanting to face her god and showing her god what she was?? Was she wronging her god by wearing what she thought was good??

In my world any church that goes around raping young children for hundreds of years and then hides that truth deserves no respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #39)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:08 PM

50. Organizations have a legal right to set rules. That is the issue. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #50)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:44 PM

57. I asked questions, you did not answer them,

I have rules and you are not following them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #57)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:46 PM

58. And if I ever attend your school,

I will demand to know the reason for your rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #58)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:48 PM

59. Why would you get to question them??

They are my rules, your job is to follow them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #59)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:50 PM

60. You are my guru, my inspiration.

As anarchists, we must always ignore and defy the rules simply because they are rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #60)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:57 PM

61. You are no anarchist

and you still refuse to answer many questions put to you
that to me shows that you are afraid of questions that question what you believe...........your beliefs sound weak to me

I believe said the Dragon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #61)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:38 PM

63. The cognitive dissonance set off a destructive resonance..........

and I cannot form a response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #63)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:47 PM

65. that does not surprize me in the least

perhaps next time you decide to engage me in discourse you might answer questions put to you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #34)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:01 PM

42. Your framing is about institutions and rules

Stripping any role the Church has in this display of gross intolerance. But, we can easily see through your display and bring it back to the actual subject at hand, enforcing gender roles on young girls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #42)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:09 PM

51. Organizations have a legal right to set rules. That is the issue.

Many can easily see why you insist on pivoting away from this unavoidable fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #51)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:33 PM

67. Many can see why you are attempting to remove religion from the conversation

You'd take us back a hundred years, they have certain rights, but discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, and race is not protected. They are clinging desperately to their religion to justify their bigotry, and you're here defending them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #67)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 05:01 PM

70. Where do you, or any other, find evidence of this?

I feel you are reading too much into my comment that private and public institutions have the right to impose rules of conduct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #4)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:17 PM

9. I would think that if a boy wanted to wear a kilt ........... it would also break the rules

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #9)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:26 PM

19. I thought about starting with that

But went with the easier argument. If suits are in the dress code, then everyone should be allowed to wear them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #19)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:45 PM

21. so true but I assume it is broken down to sex on what to wear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #21)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:50 PM

23. Which is where the issue arrises

As pointed out elsewhere, gender discrimination in clothing causes problems. Some seem to not see any trouble with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:00 PM

31. Some seem intolerant of the fact that institutions have the right to enforce certain rules.

Would you walk into a mosque in boots to make a point?

If so, what would your point be?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:03 PM

43. Institutions have the right to enforce certain rules?

So any rule they enforce should never be challenged? I suppose banning burqas would be covered under "institutions have the right to enforce certain rules."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:45 AM

47. He just makes it too easy sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:13 PM

54. See #53.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #54)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 02:30 PM

66. You're not helping yourself here

Yu just said it was ok for an institution to ban burqas, is that what you intended?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #66)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 04:59 PM

69. A careful reading of my other post regarding the shark suit and Austria

will, one hopes, resolve your apparent misunderstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 08:44 AM

46. "institutions have the right to enforce certain rules"

So you DO support governments passing so-called "burqa bans."

Fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #46)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:12 PM

53. Do you know the difference between private institutions and the government?

You make it too easy sometimes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #53)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:45 PM

64. Government is an institution, and you didn't distinguish.

You really need to try harder. I mean, it's fun to laugh at your blatant hypocrisy and feeble attempts at holding your own in a debate, but c'mon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 06:13 PM

74. I would assume that is part of their religion

the rule I would think is to show respect for their god's house
and it applies to everyone which makes it FAIR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #74)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 07:30 PM

75. Agreed.

So if institutions can have rules, or customs................

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #75)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 08:36 PM

78. rules are NOT customs

the catholic church promotes rules based on discrimination
so that makes them not fair
it seems you like to keep adding things to make your stance seem more credible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #78)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 02:02 PM

84. It seems to me that some here cannot admit that institutions can make rules.

The real crux of the matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #84)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 02:32 PM

86. Of course they can make rules.

And I can say that those rules are ridiculous and mock them for it. Can even say it makes them bigoted. The RCC can also take child rapists and those that protected the child rapists to Vatican City and protect them. Doesn't mean that isn't a really shitty thing to do and that people can't point that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #84)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 07:06 PM

91. institutions can make rules.

The crux of the matter is rules that are discriminatory

Did god say how one should be dressed when you come before him??
Or is it just the church exercising their power to control??

Perhaps if you really answered the questions then people would understand where you stand

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #91)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 07:13 PM

92. What I said was my entire point.

And it is where I stand on the single issue that:

institutions can make rules and people have the choice of:
following the rules,
challenging the rules,
or finding another institution.

My personal position on gender roles or so-called appropriateness of dress have nothing to do with the right of institutions to make and enforce rules. At one time in the RCC, the rule was that women would cover their heads and wear dresses. That rule has been ignored for a long time. Evolution, or simply response to change?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #92)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 07:23 PM

93. At one time priests could marry and have families

So I will put you down as one who is okay with discrimination as long as people follow the rules

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #93)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 07:27 PM

94. You can project, or frame, as you wish.

But your framing ignored what I actually wrote.

So why, in the interest of dialogue, do you feel this need to frame?

Is it a desire to paint others as always having bad motives?

A desire to attempt to put others on the defensive?

An interesting and revealing initial response on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #94)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 07:38 PM

95. The OP was about a church denying a young girl her wish of wearing a nice pants suit

Through out your stance was that institutions could make rules
I do not remember you saying you found this rule bad, just if one thought the rule was bad they could leave

I always hope for good motives

I do expect and hope for answers from posters to explain their positions as I try answer their questions

and it was not my initial response

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:13 PM

7. If it is private it has the right to have dress codes

a god has no exceptions

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #7)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:53 PM

26. We agree that private institutions can impose rules. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:46 PM

22. Private schools have a right to set things like dress codes.

Generally the rule is- follow the rules or seek another school. There is no right to attend a private school. All that I attended had a strictly enforced dress code, some required uniforms. I am in favor of uniforms because it ends some of the clothes competition between those who have and those who have not.

I didn't click on the link- I would like to know if the 1st Holy Communion was to take place at a regular parish Sunday Mass. If so the school dress code should be vacated. Were there children making their 1st Holy Communion that were members of the parish but attended public school?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasProgresive (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:54 PM

27. Agreed on your points.

If the church is associated with and directed by the school, or the opposite, the same rules might apply to students/churchgoers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 09:00 AM

48. This is not a matter of legal issues at all.

Of course a private institution can have dress codes. Nobody's arguing that it can't. What is in question is whether or not that institution is being silly and stupid to prevent this child from dressing as she chooses for her first communion.

That is the subject of the thread, not any "rights" or legal ability to do stupid things. Many stupid, and even idiotic, things are done by many organizations and institutions. When that happens, we have a perfect "right" to point that out and mock them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 10:37 PM

81. No worries. This problem will be resolved soon enough.

Just another pebble in the avalanche of people abandoning an anachronism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #81)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 02:03 PM

85. I will not step aside to avoid that "avalanche" at this point. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #85)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 03:22 PM

87. And you are free to do so.

Don't forget to wave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 06:53 PM

88. At the current rate of theist to non-theist "conversion", so to speak,

unless I approach Methusaleh in longevity, the avalanche will be centuries in coming, if ever. So the wave will not be necessary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #88)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 06:56 PM

89. Look closer at people under 40.

Sleep tight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #89)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 06:57 PM

90. Projections, or "projection"?

And you as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #90)

Tue Oct 17, 2017, 09:03 AM

96. Trend lines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #96)

Tue Oct 17, 2017, 10:14 AM

97. Others well after us will see.

And I feel that the same discussion of trends toward a non-theistic society will still be discussed, with non-theists confidently predicting the imminent demise of theism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:27 PM

2. They didn't actually deny her Communion.

They said they would administer it privately (I'm not saying that's an acceptable offer for the family, I'm just pointing out that they didn't actually deny her Communion).

I usually reserve judgment on stories like this because there is often more to it than just what's being reported. For the record, I'm a Catholic and it wouldn't bother me if a girl wanted to wear pants for her First Communion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #2)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:20 PM

10. First Communion is a celebration in the joining of a soul to the church

not something done in private
a community event

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #10)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:28 PM

12. I did not say I thought it was an acceptable response.

I just think the headline was somewhat misleading. It doesn't bother me in the least if a child wants to wear pants for her First Communion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #12)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:33 PM

13. I understood the pants acceptance

I just questioned that you thought the private First Communion was acceptable ........ I understand your stance better

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:36 PM

14. I just don't like misleading headlines (clickbait!) so I try to flag them. n/t


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #14)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:39 PM

15. I bet she would have been very pretty in her pantssuit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #15)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 06:43 PM

17. There was a picture of it somewhere.

It looked a little more Diane Keaton than First Communion to me, but hey! I don't care because it's about the communion, not the outfit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 04:29 PM

3. The intolerant gender separation is strictly enforced

no exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #3)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 05:22 PM

11. organized religion is so tolerant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Angry Dragon (Reply #11)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:30 PM

20. The good deeds of the church are held above reproach

While it's intolerance and bigotry are minimized, always "look to the more in your eye" and "he who is without sin" well, I'm without sin, it's a flawed concept created by the church to keep people controlled while they amass wealth and move around pedophile priests.

Sick of RCC defenders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lordquinton (Reply #20)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:11 PM

35. What's

RCC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ClarendonDem (Reply #35)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:04 PM

44. Roman Catholic Church

It's a common shorthand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 06:04 PM

16. In the town I live in there is a Catholic school and

when I was a girl the girls going to that school had to were skirts. They were allowed to wear pants under their skirts on their way to school and back if it was cold. If they went outside during school they could not put the pants on under. The parents had to fight for the girls to show up or leave with pants on under their skirt. Basically what happened in school in the winter was that the boys went out to play and the girls stayed in to sit and behave. There was very little give back then particularly for the girls. That was back in the early to mid 80's so I hope it has changed but I do not know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doreen (Reply #16)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 06:46 PM

18. Well, my town had that in the public schools.

We couldn't wear pants (in Michigan) except on special "pants days" and we had to pay money for a ticket to do so (the money went for something, I can't remember what). We all had to do the snowpants thing, too - though we did get to go out to recess -and this was not a Catholic school.

Once they changed it - at our school - it changed fast. One year it seemed as if everyone was dressed like Lulu in "To Sir, With Love" and the next year, half the girls in school looked as if they could have tried out for the cast of "Hair". It was weird.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #18)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 10:42 PM

45. I know they used to do that at public schools also but they had

stopped that where I am before I was there.

I like your description of before and after the change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doreen (Reply #45)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:12 PM

52. It was a peculiar time....

I wasn't very old, but I remember it so distinctly.

Years later, my good friend was trying to explain to her son how it was when girls couldn't wear pants to school. His honest reaction was, "who changed that? Martin Luther King?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #52)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:25 PM

55. That is funny.

We need to have classes in school that teach out children what women had and still have to go through to get equal or close to equal rights. Our boys need to learn about that when they are young. I say between the time of girls have cooties and when they are most likely to start treating them badly ( somewhere between 4th and 7th grade. As I grew up and have seen from times of being around kids it is around those ages that it is at a neutral point. It might not work with all boys but it might make enough of a difference to work towards out goal. Just a thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doreen (Reply #55)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 12:36 PM

56. It was funny, and the poor kid (now a freshman at Vanderbilt) has to hear about it a lot.

However, it's also a little worrisome that women's rights and civil rights get so blended, even something that was only 50 years ago. The struggle continues for both groups, and it's best when we can work together, but it's still shocking to me that MLK's message can get drilled down to girls wearing pants in school, AND it's also important to remember that women have had to deal with being less than equal for a long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 07:59 PM

30. Church forgot that we have religious freedom in this country.

Meaning families are free to spend their tithe dollars where they want.

This from a religion in which the men wear dresses. The Catholic Church is based upon a Roman cult in which the men castrated themselves and dressed like women and only the Pater--the Roman Father--was an intact man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:02 PM

32. Have you ever seem Muslim men wearing a long robe in public?

It is quite common.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #30)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:12 PM

36. What does religious freedom

Have to do with this issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:13 PM

37. Good lord, females fought that battle when I was in high school and we won.

The girls in my high school finally got to wear pantsuits to school in 1970.
Had to be a matching pant suit, and the jacket had to cover your behind and hips.

Beat wearing a skirt. The principal made us kneel down in his office and if the skirt hem didn't touch the floor he sent us home. We loved short skirts. The shorter the better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 08:36 PM

38. Don't take communion, it is not a real thing?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Thu Oct 12, 2017, 09:30 PM

40. And stay out!

Seriously, kid. Now's your chance. Keep walking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 07:48 PM

76. K&R!!! She's learning at an early age what religion is all about. Hope she walks and

never looks back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RKP5637 (Reply #76)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 08:52 PM

80. There's so much more to life without religion.

I hope she makes it out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Fri Oct 13, 2017, 01:24 PM

62. It's in the bible and communion dresses are big business


Seriously just don't go , stop going to church it's only going to get worse as you go from girl to women on what they will tell you should not be done.
Way beyond the terms of a special occasion outfit btw

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 07:48 PM

77. This is news why? It's the Catholic "Fetuses' Lives before Women's Lives" Church.

Seriously, what did her parents, if not herself, because she's only a little girl, expect?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #77)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 08:25 AM

82. An understandable sentiment, but blaming the victim isn't a productive use of our time.

The Church is wrong. Obviously. It's not the girl's fault, and it isn't the parents' fault for believing -- against all evidence to the contrary -- that the community to which they belong would treat their child respectfully.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #82)

Mon Oct 16, 2017, 11:12 AM

83. There is no victim here - only delusional parents who seemed to think the Catholic Church

would change its rules for them.

I don't think the daughter is a victim either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Original post)

Sun Oct 15, 2017, 08:52 PM

79. As a church or church school, are they not a private institution?

Why would they not be allowed to set a dress code?

If it were a public school, funded by tax dollars, it might be different,
although locally there are schools here that do have dress codes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread