Well, first off, the school, as a private institution, does have the right to create such rules, and to enforce them.

On the issue of dancing being forbidden in strict baptist circles, I’m reminded of a funny that goes something like this:

A young lady was a student at a strict Baptist college, and one friday night she went to town and was seen lifting her heels on the dance floor. Monday morning, she was called into the Dean’s office. The Dean fixed her with his iciest glare, and asked, “Young lady, how can a praying knee be connected to a dancing foot?” She replied, “With a fatted calf?”

I’d look at this one not as a subject for prom or no prom, but on the larger question of whether a private school has the right to demand specific behaviors from it’s students. Whether “I” agree with them is a non-issue. They have a rule, this young man is intentionally violating that rule, and he has to take his lumps. End of story.

On the subject of teenage relationships leading to perhaps lower rates of marital fidelity, I’d suggest the jury is out on that one. There have been, however, some pretty interesting studies that show a strong NEGATIVE correlation between abstinence only education, the teenage birth rate, teens having sex without contraception, early marriage, and early divorce.

In other words, it appears that many American teens are sexually active, regardless of their religious status. The more conservative their theology, the less likely they are to use contraception, the more likely they are to get married early, divorced early, and loose out on things like post-secondary education.

I agree with the kid’s father. The rule should only apply at his school. This is just another case of frightened, unrealistic, impotent clergy members trying to extend their reach where it should not be.

This is the typical fundamentalist Protestant doctrine I’m glad to say is almost unheard of in Catholicism.

It wasn’t that long ago that Bob Jones University (what a name for an educational institution!) forbade interracial dating.

I don’t know what rules comprise Heritage Christian School’s “statement of cooperation.” All the story says is that the school …”forbids dancing, rock music, hand-holding and kissing.”

Does that apply only on campus or when a student is representing the school? Because if Heritage Christian School believes they can legally seek to control students when they’re off campus and not representing the school, then I think they’ll run into problems.

hs,

I hope most will agree that teenage promiscuity leads to a lot of problems in our society and hence we should try to find ways to reverse the trend. I would agree that abstinence only education is fruitless or worse, conterproductive. But here we are not talking education, rather behavior modification. I am not sure if this particular school’s policies are the right ‘formula’ but can we really make a difference without behavior modification? And behavior modification has to be done during the early age and it has to be practised not just preached.

WTF? Is this principal serious? What century is he from? It’s pretty scary that there are still crazy christians around like this guy. He and others like him are wackjobs…bet he’s republican, bet he likes Dick Cheany, also bet he supported torture and the Iraqi war. Rush Limbaugh is his hero? What a moron.

I agree with hs. This is an issue of integrity. What did the student agree to? The step father being clever about the wording of the agreement is only that. It is an attempt to use reason to undo his stepson’s word.

If the student no longer agrees, honor his commitment to completion, then choose another way. Simple, maybe not easy. Easier if he is humble, and honors his word above his desires.

I suspect the agreement was intended for the student, not just his time in school. This would be consistent with a school of faith.

Integrity requires we honor our word.

Without out integrity our faith is empty.

Regarding abstinence, if the intent is to maintain abstincence until marriage, integrity would call for the agreemet to say that. Obscurely referencing certain behaviors that some may think create a temptation lacks integrity and directness.

Consider that complex laws and rules managing behavior is engaging in the business of sin, and will not work. It not only defines the forbidden fruit, it creates it, with holds it, and does everything in its power to manufacture the temptation. Jesus asks us not to do this. It is in our prayers.

Glory to God is not created by defining what it is not. This is fear.

Speak only to that which inspires us. The love and beauty of marriage, and the commitment that upholds it.

I know of no clearer distinction of what is secular and what is religion, what is faith and what is knowledge, what is of this world and what is of the next.

I think there are two issues in this blog post.

First, can the school hold students responsible for their actions off of school property? And, is just attending a prom such a violation. (I assume one could attend the prom and not dance, right). Schools, public and private, already do this. If a student is arrested for violating the law they can be suspended or expelled. That said, unless you are Elaine Benes, dancing is hardly a crime. Does the school extend this for other violations? For example, if they know Johnny and Becky are kissing at home do they suspend them?

Second issue is morality of teens vs what is expected of adult married people. I think to assume that all kids going to the prom are going to end up in a drunken orgy is a bit off the mark. Schools and parent groups are attempting to have all-night activities to keep this from happening. In addition, it is not just teens who have multiple sex partners but adults, too. Yet, some seem to have completely monogamous sex lives once married. Maybe that’s about finding “the one” or the right match-up of two people. Maybe they finnally “sowed their wild oats”. Either way, we need to be teaching our teens about how their decisions can affect their lives (be it sex, drinking, drug use, or bullying behaviors) needs to be reinforced in the homes and schools.

Yeah, there’s much more here than whether this sounds reasonable or not. I do not agree with the policy, but I did not sign anything saying I did, and that I would abide by the policy.

I do agree that this type of expectation is not seen in catholic circles, but I see little expectation of any behavior in most catholic circles. I wouldn’t brag about that fact.

If you wish to reduce this to simply a rights issue, you’re in the wrong argument. It’s not about whether a legal right exists for rules extending outside of a private school’s campus. If that’s the take on it, I would question a family’s intent when deciding to send their children to that school.

I would like to throw this out there on promiscuity. If teen pregnancy and STD rates are the only concern then we are doing disservice to children. There’s a lot more to the equation. Also if those are our only criteria, then sex education as a whole is a ridiculous failure, and the availabilty of birth control would seem to be counter productive. Khalid pretty much hit it that there is a behavior modification needed. That means a way of thinking as a whole is required. All the good intentions that create an increasingly permissive atmosphere about sex will prove useless and antithetical to the intent.

The discussion is heart of the problem with organized Religion. Let’s go one beyond this simple test of religion. Does Archbishop Burke have the right as a religious leader to dictate what a practicing Catholic politian votes for?
Does a Synagogue have the right to ban people from services because in it view they don’t practice the 615 commandments or just one?
Do Mosques have the right to bar people from their worship, because they were caught drinking a beer?

We commit to religious ideas and values, then qualify those. Tolerant Religious attitudes since the founding of this country has been to encourage one beliefs but not punish those who don’t follow them. Church and State don’t mix. Yet they do. We will continue to debate this one for a long time.

I feel sorry Tyler. I agree that he signed up to the school policy and he should keep his word, if he doesn’t like their rules he should go somewhere else for his schooling. However, its nearly his graduation and when he first went there he probably didn’t consider the possiblity of girlfriends or proms. So I’m sympathetic. Besides which, if his parents sent him to such a religious school I’m sure he’s been brought up not to indulge in sex and alcohol, and it seems harsh to assume that is what all proms are all about.