My personal opinion is that the school was within their rights. Since she was working at a christian school she has to abide by their rules. Of course I also believe that most christians are bat shit crazy...
Well, Brian, all I can say is we have a very fundamental disagreement over what constitutes morality and what consitutes setting a good example for children. I can sure understand if this woman does not want to go to this church and beg for "charity" for her pregnancy care after how she was treated. And BTW no, you can't always count backwards from a birth. Pregnancies are rarely 9 months to the minute. I came into the world 3 weeks early. I was my mother's second child and no one was monitoring her sex life, I was over 7 lb, so there was no issue. Had it been otherwise and had she been teaching in a "moral" school she would have had to prove I was conceived on her wedding night and not 3 weeks earlier.
Fair enough, and I can respect that. I'd be interested (offline, even) why you don't think that honor, courage, discipline and integrity are important? Or that they should be taught to children? This isn't a "church", it's a school. A place of employment. With far different rules of conduct, behavior, and acceptance than being a member of a church. If she isn't going to church anymore, based on "how she was treated" by an employer, I feel even worse for her. On a tangent, my curiosity is piqued on why "charity" from the gov't (in the form of mandated time off) is ok, but getting help from a religious organization is "begging for charity". That extends to welfare, WIC, unemployment, tax breaks, etc. But that's probably for another thread as well. I'm well aware that babies come prematurely. Mine (my first) just came 5 weeks early. And if I had been asked why I needed to take a week for "paternity benefits" (which I don't receive, btw) earlier than scheduled, I could say "hey, she came early." . But that's not what the teacher said. She said that she had fornicated. Not a "moral" school. One that had a code of conduct, and that code of conduct just happened (in this particular case) to be based on generally accepted "christian" (little "c") morals. . There's a large, fundamental difference here, and I respect that you disagree, but I don't quite get why you do. You really don't see that there's a difference b/w private employers having a code they want their employees living up to, and a mode/place of worship? For another example, the code of ethics at my previous employer disallowed "business gifts" being accepted. This isn't a "christian" perspective, but one that this company held to (for legal reasons dealing with gov't contracts, I'd imagine). I know of many companies that let their employees keep "swag bags", or airline vouchers if they're delayed on business trips, etc...but mine didn't. If I'd have pocketed the free future first class upgrade without disclosing it to my employer, I would have been terminated for cause. Just for accepting the airlines' first-class upgrade for wasting my time!? Nope, for violating a code of conduct. My gut feel on this (by no means "truth") is that this is something that those opposed to churches/morality/ethical responsibility are using (much like those "Whacky Christians" threads) to show more misunderstanding and vent more bile towards them. I wish that wasn't the case.
I am a Christian and went to chatholic school for K - 8 grades. I think the bible, especially the new testament, preaches a message of love and forgiveness. Firing this woman for sex outside of marriage goes against this message. If the school has more than 50 employees the probably will lose the lawsuit because they would fall under federal laws of discrimination. (I wish more people would see out a mediator in these cases though.) The school doesn't really have a legal or moral leg to stand on. I like how the principal ends his termination letter to this lady:
Even the military is getting out of the business of policing what consenting adults do in bed. It's not the 1800's anymore. barfo
Of course it does. It also teaches messages of accountability, responsibility, sin, repercussions, justice, etc. It's very easy to quote Matthew 7:1, 1John 4:21, Galatians 6:1-2 and say that Christians should be loving and non-judgmental and love their brothers. And the members of her church should absolutely be doing this. I have yet to see something where her church has excommunicated her, she's been discriminated against in her church, denounced from the pulpit, subjected to church discipline, etc. All I've seen is an employee fired for violating code of conduct. I don't know the law, so I'll defer on this...but my question is "how can this be discrimination if she confesses to violating the code of conduct for the company"? He's referring to 1Cor 6:5-8, which talks about how Christians shouldn't go to "worldly" (some translations "ungodly") judges to judge matters between them. Here's one version of that passage: She "did wrong" by not following the code of conduct. The school fired her. It didn't sue her for employment under false pretenses. It didn't take back pay away. It dismissed someone who egregiously and publicly violated their code of conduct. Her attitude is the one that is unlike that taught in the NT, and is consistent with her actions that show she's not really interested in what the Bible says, but what feels good to her.
A co-worker just showed me this, and we were laughing. Usually, you only get smote (smitten?) by lightning if you blaspheme or take the name of the LORD in vain. What did Touchdown Jesus ever do to anyone? Although it did kind of go against that whole "no graven images" thing...
Brian, it is certainly fair enough to say we disagree on what is moral and what should be taught to children. But to infer from that that I don't think children should be taught honor, integrity, courage et al is not fair or true. The woman showed honor when she answered honestly, even though one could say her relations with her husband were no one's business but theirs. She showed courage and integrity. What, incidentally, is the school's excuse for telling all the staff and parents she was a "fornicator"? It is possible my viewpoint is also colored by the numberous "family values" holier than thou's who turned out to have "wide stance" or go on vacation with "escort boys" or be part time male hookers, or patronize brothels where they asked to be spanked, etc. Personally, I have a much higher opinion of a woman who had sex with the man she presumably loves, 3 weeks before they tied the knot. They harmed no one. For me, morality starts, like the Hippocratic oath, with "first, do no harm". Spilling millions of gallons of oil is immoral to me. A couple's private consenting relations is not immoral to me. But I think we are summing up how we both approach things. What comes first, ironclad rules, or people's (and animals, plants) lives? One person sees a cancer patient smoking pot to ease pain and nausea even though his/her state does not permit medical marijuana. Another sees a drug abuser. One person sees someone whose family is starving, trying to find any work to feed them. Another sees an illegal immigrant. One person sees a sit in at a segregated lunch counter. Another sees an illegal gathering. One person sees a young couple happily starting a family. Another sees a fornicator.
That annoying part of Christianity that takes all the fun out of being judgmental. Why does it keep getting thrown in the faces of Christians? But other Christians shouldn't be doing this? Like, for example, the Christians in charge of that school? Matthew 7:1, John 4:21, Galatians 6:1-2 only applies to Christians in her church? So you advocate Christians never going to court or any legal authority unless it's to sue/report someone of another faith? Or do you only feel it should apply here?
My apologies. I thought that after my "definition" of morality that included honor, courage, integrity, etc. you had said that we disagreed, that it was on those points...which is why I was curious. I agree (and said so) that she showed courage (and honor, though I didn't say it) in confessing the truth when confronted with it. Actually, one can't say in this case that her relations were no one's business, b/c she signed a code of conduct that said it WAS the school's business to ensure they weren't hiring "fornicators". She wasn't (and wouldn't have been) fired from Seattle Public Schools for getting pregnant out of wedlock. But she didn't choose to work there...she chose to take a job at a school with a code of conduct that didn't permit that. A school that probably HAD a code of conduct to ensure that parents who believed that way would pay the money to send their kids to a place they felt comfortable with. On an aside, my wife has many friends who've attended Bob Jones U. I have a hard time understanding why they'd go there, how they could live under rules that make Liberty look liberal, and how one can grow spiritually or mentally when under that set of strict guidelines. That said, everyone knows when they sign up there that those are the rules, and that if you want to smoke pot, drink, go to R-rated movies or have sex that Bob Jones isn't the place for you. They can dismiss anyone they want to, for any violation of their codes. And the only one the government has been able to make them change is the one on interracial dating. And no one would blame you for that, especially in the face of the public hypocrisy that seems so prevalent nowadays (or at least, has greater media coverage?). Part of the reason I post here (in what many may think are whacked-out, ultra-right-wing, nonsensical religious perspectives) is to add an element to the conversation that many may not get/understand/come into contact with. That's a great point. I guess I'm generally of the mindset that people are supposed to follow rules, b/c that's what society has deemed does the most to forward a productive society. If a cancer patient's only medicine is to partake of an illegal drug, then there should be legislation showing that they can be allowed to do that. Otherwise, they're breaking the law for selfish and narcissistic reasons. And if that was the case, I'd sign petitions and vote to help them do that. (In this case, I know that there are multiple other drugs that can be taken legally for it). For the "starving family" example, there are legal ways of getting a work permit to the country. If there needs to be change, then let's work to change the immigration codes, etc. to help these people. But until that point, they are breaking the law for selfish and narcissistic reasons. Segregation based upon race WAS wrong, and it was challenged by enough people that the law was changed. (Yet we still segregate based on sex...which is comical to me...but that's a digression). It comes down to this: I don't think one should be able to break the law for personal gain. If there's a legitimate problem, there are more than enough lawyers, recourses, petitions, etc. to get the law changed in our representative republic. But I disagree with those who think that the person is more important than the society. I get that that's an unpopular viewpoint. I get that there's a chicken-an-egg aspect of that with someone who belongs to a church, serves his community and is in the military. I think the degradation of great societies historically has come from the move from "service" to "serve me", and that's one thing I personally fight against.
(response to barfo's post) If you're going to profess Christianity, one of the tricky points is that you have to listen to it all, even the stuff you think doesn't make sense (like the entire Sermon on the Mount). Do I agree that there is almost always other recourse before going to the civilian court system? Yes. Do I believe that there are times you should just take it with a smile (you might have heard "turn the other cheek" or "walk the extra mile"...both of which were responses to Roman authority), even if you're the one wronged? Yes. The principal has a responsibility to his students. He's going to be judged for what he's done with what he's been given, and that's on him. Fortunately, it's also well within the legal rights he has as a private employer. I fail to see the connection you're trying to draw between a Christ-professing school principal firing an employee and interpersonal matters among Christ-professing Christians. As another aside, these discussions we're having kind of point out why those in the church are dissuaded to go to those not of the church (who are more than entitled to their opinion and lifestyle and moral choices) for judgment. There's a code that I've chosen to attempt to live by, and it's because of my faith. The city of Seattle could care less if I impregnate half the city out of wedlock, but I'm ordered not to by my God. I take that seriously. I totally understand if someone doesn't. But I'm not going to go to the Mayor's office to judge whether or not someone has broken some of God's rules against me. I imagine it'd be similar to me going to the King County prosecutor's office for a ruling on Kosher or Shari'a law.
Perhaps if you're a Christian...but that's a major problem I have with "faith." You have to believe it all, even the stuff that doesn't make sense, as you put it. As a non-Christian, one is free to accept/adopt just the things from Christianity that do make sense. And one can take from Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. And incorporate it into philosophy and science, to form a worldview. One doesn't have to simply "believe" a book of principles that has no evidence supporting its worth even if it doesn't feel true to you. You call it venerating ourselves as "gods"...I call it taking responsibility for forming one's own view of the world and life.
she fornicated. Which, to them, is probably different that taking home a couple of pens from the storeroom. And when asked about it, she didn't cover it up...she told them that it was fornication. I guess that's what I meant by "public"...the kids knew she was pregnant, and knew she was fired, and probably (though I'm unsure of this) told why one of the teachers was fired. Either way, it's public now.
I do agree with Brian that one should not be able to break the law for personal gain (BP, anyone?) - if by personal gain you mean screw others to get rich. But what about Les Miserables? Where a man was imprisoned for stealing bread for his starving family? Was he wrong? Selfish and narcissistic? I also agree unust laws should be changed. But you know, had the colonists not broken the laws, we would not be having this debate. I disagree that a cancer patient using pot is "selfish and narcissistic". Here's a case for you. Poland, 1930s. Nazis have occupied Poland and are rounding up Jews. It is illegal for Jews to leave the country. A couple, knowing they are doomed, smuggle out their 2 year old. Many smugglers were members of the Quakers and other similar groups who risked their lives to save others. First question, were the Quakers wrong? But others were crooks. They would take the family's last few possessions and then turn in the children to the Gestapo for the reward. Question 2, were they wrong? They were following the law. The family goes to their death never knowing if their child was alive. Fortunately for her, it was group 1 that smuggled her out. They took her to England, even though it was against the law for smuggled children to be taken there if they had no relatives. She lived with a family who lied to keep her during the war. Were they wrong? Later, since she had American relatives, they sent her to America and finally she was legal. She's my cousin Lola. Should Lola have died to obey the law? Were all those, from her family in Poland, to the Quakers who smuggled her, to the English family who lied and said she was related to them, right or wrong? Selfish and narcissistic? Or self-sacrificing and generous? Rules or lives?
It's a valid view...but one of the tenets of Christianity is that not only is God perfect and our Creator (giving Him the authority to tell us what to do and what not to do) but that every word in the Bible is true. People may not want to listen to things like "let people wrong you", or "it's adultery if you lust after a girl in a swimsuit" because it goes against our sin nature. We want to To me (*this is pure personal philosophy*), if you get to pick and choose which elements you're going to follow, you're leading your own life, and not what you're intended/created for. Another of the tenets of Christianity is that humans are fallen creatures, and prone to evil. One of the graces given to us is a society that tends to mitigate much of that evil. But who's to say "don't murder", "don't speed", "don't smoke pot", etc.? We're seeing it a bit even in our remarkable advanced gov't that people are doing things for their own personal gain, and not the good of the society/populace. If you let people pick and choose outside of a coherent worldview, the pluralism gives a false sense that what you're doing to "right" or "good".
Every word of the Bible is true. We "know" this because God says so. How do we know God exists? Because the Bible says so and, as established previously, every word of is true. I continue to wonder: How do you know when to have belief without evidence? If I tell you that I am literally God and everything I say is true...you might ask for evidence that this is true. I might then respond that you must have faith...if I proved it, then it would require no faith. And faith is paramount. How do you know not to have faith in me but to have faith in Christianity? We both have no literal evidence and demand faith.
All three. Why is it that the breadmaker has to work to feed his family, but the thief can just steal another man's livelihood so that he doesn't have to make his own? Why couldn't he get a job? Grow wheat himself? Barter for bread? Learn a trade? Contribute tangibly to society in a way that gets him compensated? "It's tough, so I'm going to steal...that's much easier". I have little sympathy for that. You mean, when the colonists peaceably demonstrated for 20 years about the illegality of King George II and III being able to tax British citizens in the colonies without representation, and only after England's army invaded to illegally arrest the leaders of the peaceful demonstrators that they took up arms against them? Which laws do you think the colonists broke that were narcissistic? Fair enough. I'm intimately familiar with multiple people in various stages or recovering or dying from cancer. None of them are afforded marijuana for their recovery. If it were legal to do so, more power to them. If they're taking an illegal drug for their recovery, they're breaking the law for a narcissistic reason ("easing pain", "taking my mind off the cancer", etc.). In this case, lives. I'd say that that's an odd situation, one that occurred largely because people looked out for themselves in the 20's and 30's and didn't stand up and do the right thing in holding the BrownShirts accountable for bullying voters, assassinating political leaders, etc. The German populace voted for Hitler, multiple times. And then they stood by as his government granted him broad-sweeping powers over life and death. And no one protested that. No one peaceably demonstrated. No one wrote newspaper articles condemning the Nazi-fication of Germany. And largely because of the cowardice and narcissism of the German populace, millions of people died. I'm glad that your cousin was spared. I'm sorry that her family was not. And I hope you can take this example and extrapolate a bit into why there are "Tea Partiers", and people like me and others on the board who protest what we don't agree with in gov't.
