How Can I Stay Engaged Discreetly During Church Services?

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm not quite sure an outsider's view of the value or fairness of rewarding one group over another is really relevant. It's the school/church handing out the discounts/money and their criteria should be their decision alone.

Similarly, a shop owner charging too high prices doesn't give a person to shoplift from the price gouging owner's store.

I don't buy this compassion. It's not akin to stealing from a shop, it's akin to buying something from a shopkeeper who will only sell to football fans which you pretend to be. All actions should be waited against their reward and harm and I don't see the harm in this one.

 

[NemoReally]

I recommend you reread Jow's posts ...

OK.

I am a Roman Catholic and for various reasons I must go to church at least a couple of times a month. Even the most devout get bored in church and I, not being a religious person, get extremely bored. Can you think of anything I could do during church that won't look like I am doing anything. One thing I already do is practice my mandarin in my head (but that is a tad difficult because if I forget a word I can't look through my textbook). I also make fun of things said by the priest, but after a while that gets pretty boring as his homilies tend to be about similar things. Any suggestions would be great, thanks :)

I don't have a choice, I must go to church (I go to a Catholic School and I must keep up appearances).

The reason that I absolutely must go to church is because tuition is reduced if you are a Catholic. However, my priest has to sign a letter saying I go to Church. And no, I can't change schools, or rather I won't change schools, because the only private schools around (that don't have a +$10 000 a year tuition) are catholic. And yes, I have to go to an independent school because the public schools in my area aren't very good and the teachers go on strike ever second week...

Done. My analysis is that Jow's school is an educational establishment run by the Roman Catholic Church that provides a better quality education than his local public schools at a price that is lower than the local non-Catholic independent schools. Reduced tuition fees at the school are available to members of the Roman Catholic Church and such membership must be validated, eg by a priest confirming the scholar regularly attends Church.

... so you have a better understanding of the school he goes to.

My understanding is no different from the first time I read his posts. Could you please rephrase his posts in such a way that I can gain the "better" understanding of his school that you refer to?

Your hostility is entirely unjustifiable and unrealistic.

What hostility? Why would such putative hostility be unjustifiable and why would it be unrealistic?

 

[NemoReally]

He's not obtaining anything by deception, HE'S ROMAN CATHOLIC!

His opening sentence in his first post.

I am a Roman Catholic and for various reasons I must go to church at least a couple of times a month. Even the most devout get bored in church and I, not being a religious person, get extremely bored. ...

Don't worry, after 11.5 years of Catholic school, my knowledge of the good book and Catholic theology is formidable, though, I haven't found a good use for it, other than being able to anticipate the arguments made by Christians.

Jow then claims to be non-religious which falsifies his claim to be a Roman Catholic; this view is supported by his lack of identification with "Christians" in the second quote and by the general tenor of his comments.

Once again, he didn't steal anyone's place at a catholic school, he's CATHOLIC.

The facts as presented do support an argument that Jow necessarily stole somebody's place, nor gained a place by deception, but they do support a view that he is practising deception by obtaining educational services at reduced cost by pretending to be religious.

 

[NemoReally]

I don't buy this compassion. It's not akin to stealing from a shop, it's akin to buying something from a shopkeeper who will only sell to football fans which you pretend to be.

No it's not. It is nearer to obtaining a fan discount from the shopkeeper, which discount comes from the shopkeeper's income, and for an attractive item that is in limited supply.

All actions should be waited against their reward and harm and I don't see the harm in this one.

You have already shown that you do not know the overall rewards and harm. The Church has invested in a person from whom they can expect no future organizational contribution (you would need to ask the question of the Church to determine what, if any, harm they believe they have suffered). Jow has learned that it's OK to deceive people if it gets you what you want. Furthermore, in these days where one has to be careful what one writes on the internet, then a putative employer who does an internet search on Jow, and finds this out, may decided that his ethics are not of the standard that they require (or they may decide he's just what they're looking for ...).

 

[NemoReally]

or a child from a richer family?

Indeed. Such factors should be taken into account when assessing the overall harm-benefit equation (like a kind of ethical sum over histories ...), including the fact that a child from a richer family is more likely to have other options than the local state school whereas a child from a poorer family may have fewer or no options.

Do you see any reason to couple religiosity to the costs of education?

In this case, yes. The Roman Catholic church both runs and sponsors schools and like many organization offers particular benefits to its members which are not available to non-members.

 

[NemoReally]

Cleary Jow is not in the wrong, if he's still legally under parental control.

Being under parental control does not absolve an individual from acting in an ethical manner. There may be things that a child is forced to, but in this instance Jow has indicated that he could change school but won't because his alternatives are either more expensive or of inferior educational quality. As he has been at schools for at least 11.5 years, he is also likely of an age where he could be held legally responsible for his actions.

Whether his parents are in the wrong either legally or morally are two different questions.

Indeed; there is, however, no evidence as to his parents' knowledge of Jow's thoughts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's not like a shop discount is it? Because that would imply the shopkeeper is willing to sell to everyone.

Honestly if you think that something like this is teaching Jow that under any circumstance deception is a good thing then I can't see any productive conversation happening. You're right that I don't know the full ramifications but from what I do know I don't see this as serious. Especially given that the reasons you offer like the church wanting to educate school children that will later contribute to the church don't hold if you take into account that just because Jow isn't particularly religious now doesn't mean he won't later contribute to the church and conversely there's no guarantee that any other child would contribute either.

Lastly regarding if Jow is actually catholic we'll have to wait for him to clarify but I've met plenty of Christians (and Catholics) in the past that would say they aren't particularly religious. A lot of it is cultural depending on where you are from.

 

[mfb]

I'm not quite sure an outsider's view of the value or fairness of rewarding one group over another is really relevant. It's the school/church handing out the discounts/money and their criteria should be their decision alone.

Similarly, a shop owner charging too high prices doesn't give a person to shoplift from the price gouging owner's store.

As far as I can see, their criterion is "you have to go to church". And that is satisfied.

(like a kind of ethical sum over histories ...)

I am quite sure the history of Christian churches will look bad in that sum, but that is off-topic.

including the fact that a child from a richer family is more likely to have other options than the local state school whereas a child from a poorer family may have fewer or no options.

Wait, with that argument every student would "steal" a place which would have been (more likely than not) for a poorer student otherwise?

 

[Evo]

This thread has gone way too far off topic.