CA Would Ban Teaching of Catechism by Catholics?

SDBoiler1

All-American
Gold Member
Jul 30, 2001
22,595
15,254
113
New Haven, CT

chiefboiler23

True Freshman
Mar 24, 2009
500
540
93
Numerous commentators have raised concerns about a proposed bill currently in the California Senate, Assembly Bill 2943. The bill would amend the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit “sexual orientation change efforts.”

It seems that the bill is poorly worded. Coming from CA, why am I not surprised?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/29/california-bill-ban-catholics-teaching-kids-catechism/

Firstly, no this won't ban the sale of the bible and no, I don't believe this is a backend way for California to litigate the hell out of christianity just because. The aim of this bill is to expand the current law that prohibits conversion therapy. Important note: this doesn't stop churches or other organizations from doing it, they just can't advertise or charge people for it.

It all really boils down to the definition of "Sexual orientation change efforts"

(i) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

My personal interpretation of this text is that it does not infringe upon CCD classes to keep doing what they are doing from a teachings perspective. As long as they aren't teaching the churches position on homosexuality as a way to persuade children to change their behaviors, it is fine. They can certainly teach children the churches stance and say "if you want to live a christian life, these are the teachings" so long as they don't actively take individual children and try to curate them to heterosexuality. But I do agree this is squishy language at best.

Side question - why does the church charge for CCD? I started in CCD but never finished but always thought it was a part of the church's community offering. Shouldn't they want to indoctrinate more children to become part of the church? Adding a charge is prohibitive to that.
 

tjreese

All-American
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2008
19,816
16,650
113
Numerous commentators have raised concerns about a proposed bill currently in the California Senate, Assembly Bill 2943. The bill would amend the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act to prohibit “sexual orientation change efforts.”

It seems that the bill is poorly worded. Coming from CA, why am I not surprised?

http://thefederalist.com/2018/06/29/california-bill-ban-catholics-teaching-kids-catechism/
no surprises here, but California's influence is much greater in public education than we or most wish... I hope or imagine? Whether this or wanting to drop the SAT years ago so that more minority students could attend...California has been influential into what is taught even in Indiana. It all starts with textbook adoptions. California and Texas dictate a lot of what is in textbooks as each may bowdlerize the other's interest. This happens due to sales volumes as each publisher wants the states business. Florida and New York follow behind. As they get the business of the large states..the other publishers drop. As Diane Ravitch points out in "The Language Police"
Today, multiculturalist groups approve the texts...even math texts. Ever wonder why social promotions are included in the margins of math books? Anyway, for those with an eye to see and an ear to hear..many of the problems we see today can be traced back to public education...I believe...(and have no intention of blaming teachers in many cases) like herd mentality or group think...part of the pedagogy practices. Now, having spent a good time wasting my time on educational "things" in the past, I'm not getting drug into this other than to say...California's influence is much greater than just California...sorry to say...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDBoiler1

gr8indoorsman

All-American
Gold Member
Oct 4, 2004
57,165
38,615
113
San Diego, CA
I mean, I went through CCD and sexuality never came up. I think they'd still be in their rights to explain the church's position on homosexuality, but could not directly engage an individual student on their personal sexuality. Seems like the Federalist is blowing this out of proportion (stunning!).

The language in the bill leads me to believe that mental health providers would also not be able to assist Q or T children. For example, I read the bill as saying a boy comes to a mental health provider because he thinks he identifies as a girl and is attracted to boys. Can the mental health provider even discuss anything with such a patient?