Enoch Burke turns up to school again despite sacking - read OP before posting

He was suspended due to his behaviour so yes, he should have. Should he be fired for following the proper procedure if he had done so? Probably not and probably wouldn’t have. It doesn’t mean they wouldn’t wanted to have but they’re obliged to follow proper procedures also. Ultimately I don’t think he would have won his case if the school was willing to facilitate the child’s and parents wishes. The child in question also has rights. We’ll never know now how far he could have taken it? I’m sure there has already been this situation but it has never been an issue because the child was accommodated by the school and they didn’t have a teacher like Enoch on staff.

Hopefully someone with a better religious background can clarify but isn't the Burke family guilty of Pride and Wrath, two of the cardinal sins? It would take a braver man that I to challenge them to a theology debate but perhaps such a debate might offer some opportunity of a stepdown from the brinkmanship on display.

I’m not very religious but I do the mass thing etc because I’m a parent and they’re involved in the children’s mass and seem to enjoy it for now. I won’t force them like my parents did with us. I think what matters is to be as good a Christian as you can by how you treat others. The Burkes seem to me to be far from the Christian values I was raised with but then I don’t know much about their religion and of course it’s open to interpretation. Then again, we were beaten in school by nuns and priests so just because you’re religious, doesn’t mean you’re kind, charitable or better than anyone else.

See, I knew someone smarter that me would come along. :)

such a debate might offer some opportunity of a stepdown from the brinkmanship on display

What about the last six months makes you think the Burkes would be remotely open to debate?

Jesus could descend from his fluffy cloud tomorrow, tell the Burkes to cop the f**k on, and they still wouldn't change course. Poor Jesus would probably find himself in front of a WRC tribunal or something.

Honestly, it's long past time we stopped pretending this is anything to do with religion. It absolutely isn't. It never was.

This is 100% exclusively about hating people who are different.

They're widely displayed in catholic churches but they're not really part of the dogma. And there's non catholic denominations that reference them. It's probably best thought of as "Western christian tradition". A lot of protestant denominations keep a lot of catholic traditions. Although a lot of the newer evangelical groups ditched everything.

So the actual answer is that they probably don't but who the fcuk knows.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/seven-deadly-sins

First enumerated by Pope Gregory I (the Great) in the 6th century and elaborated in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas, 

https://www.crosswalk.com/faith/bible-study/does-the-bible-actually-mention-seven-deadly-sins.html

The Bible does not categorize pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth as the 'seven deadly sins.' They are mentioned by different names in all kinds of places.

It is true that the sins listed are mentioned individually, directly or indirectly, in various places in the Bible, but as a concept of 'seven deadly sins' or cardinal sins, that was a later assemblage.

There are such a lot of things in the Bible and Christian teaching that the family ignore as it suits them that it is not surprising that they ignore these. Righteousness seems to be their main concern.

The tradition of the seven deadly sins is actually quite strong amongst evangelicals, even though they're not mentioned in the bible.

Arch evangelical preacher Billy Graham wrote two books about them::

Here's his justification for discussing them:

They're mentioned in a lot of contemporary evangelical websites too.

As for the Burkes, who knows if they regard the list as being significant, but they would certainly recognise each one individually as a sin, as they're all specifically called out in various places in the bible.

Of course, it gets complicated. The sin of Pride is taking credit for your actions or achievements, when you should be giving the credit to God. The sin of Wrath is taking retribution on people, when you should be leaving that to God. So actions that one person may condemn as pride or wrath, could be justified in the name of God to the believer. As always, there's a get-out clause: I'm doing it in God's name, so it can't be a sin. And the Bible is so contradictory that there's plenty of passages that justify pride and wrath in various ways.

Yes.

No, other an the fine being accrued.

None so far.

It was due to be heard but he was late to court so it was adjourned.

Oh fair enough , maybe I missed the context.

But not Timothy 2:12. Funny that. 🤔

I had the 28th in my head alright but I wasn’t sure what was what 😂. Isn’t O’Moore handling both issues? Do we know yet is he running them together or keeping them separate? This could go on for years with all their cases 🫣

I said they wouldn't use the term 7 deadly sins because they are evangelical. it was somebody else who said it was not a non-catholic thing.