Brian, should BP be held accountable? Criminally prosecuted? I read the King James bible cover to cover. I don't think it's the revealed word of any god, but I did read it. Try another attack. I'd be willing to bet you did not read Les Miserables (or for that matter Origin of Species). And the King James bible does say in so many words that gays and lesbians should be killed. You said the bible is every word true. So I infer you think that is true. Your words, not mine. Funny, how religion always seems to be the excuse for lack of compassion. What do you think of this woman? She committed a felony theft. She got away with it so she continued to steal valuable property, over and over. She smuggled the stolen goods across the border illegally. Although there was a price on her head, she was never caught. She died in her bed, an old woman. Property owners said she cost them a small fortune in lost goods, as well as disrupting their businesses. She was so loathed by the leaders of her home state that even the song she was known to sing as banned. You're thinking now there must be a catch and of course there is. The woman was Harriet Tubman, aka Miss Moses. The valuable property she stole from legal owners was first herself, then other slaves, whom she smuggled into Canada. My sister was named for her; I guess our parents thought this "thief" and "criminal" was a woman of honor, courage, and integrity. Rules or lives, Brian? Her song. Banned throughout the South.
I think this woman is going to have a hard case to make in the courts. Separation of church and state. She's a christian woman, but not clergy. We sent our daughter to a catholic school for several reasons, none of which us being catholic. The key thing I know about such schools is that they educate children for a lot less money than public schools and the kids graduate and go to college for the most part (our reasons, exactly). There were a couple of classes a semester that were religious, but we felt it was worth it for the opportunities provided for our daughter. I've been in a catholic church twice in my life, both for friends' weddings. My wife is not religious nor was she or her family catholic. The most relevant thing about this experience for this thread is that the schools are taught by laypeople these days, not nuns who slap the kids with rulers like in the old days. I don't see that the woman is entitled to this job. The church has every right to establish draconian moral and ethical standards for its teachers. Education is and should always be about the results - those results being what's good for the children. The people who run these private schools have every right to assert rules they feel are best toward that end. I can see their view that the woman sets some sort of bad example, and that case is going to be hard to dispute in a court room. That said, in other situations, the woman has an outstanding case, and the school's/church's handling of the situation was obnoxious, rude, and downright disgraceful. You asked barfo about gay marriage, so I'll chime in on that. I fully support it, but I don't support forcing the church to recognize it - it's their loss, IMO.
What have they done so far that would warrant criminal prosection? (that's not snarky...I don't know what charges are being drawn up) And yet you continue with the whole "I should be dead because of Brian's interpretation" monologue? That doesn't show understanding. Fine. Your eyes skimmed the pages. But the statements you've been posting have been so far from what the Bible says that you wouldn't pass the test in World Lit. Oh-for-two on that one. You think that I'm some illiterate putz because I have faith? OoS was required reading for the biochemistry classes I took in college. I took an entire class on French Lit at the Naval Academy (where we read --and wrote essays and tests to show understanding--such books as Les Mis, Madame Bovary, the Plague etc. I read Monte Cristo in French. I noticed that you didn't attempt to answer any of the points I refuted for you about Nazi Germany. Perhaps it's because you can't fathom that someone like me can read, understand AND remember the stuff I read in "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" and Toland's "Hitler". But I'm sorry to say that the normal "Christian people are illiterate, so I can dazzle them with my elitist education and discount their incoherent ramblings" thing doesn't work with me... you'll have to find another attack. Or, better for the discussion, just answer the points I'm making. Correct. Yes I did. You are correct in that inference. It also says liars, those who disobey parents, adulterers, thieves, divorcees, those who get angry, those who don't work, etc. deserve death and hell and eternal separation from God. Your homosexuality doesn't make you special. Please disabuse yourself of the misguided fallacy that you're part of some extraordinary group set apart by God for hateful destruction. The wages of sin (ANY SIN) is death...but the very next phrase is "but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus". That's what the Bible says, even the King James. One's life (and the sin that comes with it) and works are not enough to get into Heaven. Faith in Jesus must be there. In my view of Christianity (and the one you read in the King James and every other Bible), one isn't eternally separated from God because they're gay. They're eternally separated from God because they don't want to believe that Jesus's sacrifice is the only way to not be. BTW: is the King James one special to you somehow? You like reading things in 16th-century English? Did you read Les Mis in the literary French? Unabridged? What's funny is that religion is the root of compassion. Without it, you can't have a reference. 2Cor1:3 (also in the King James) states that God is the "Father of Compassion". The parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the leading examples of "compassion". Rules. Can you tell me where in history slavery first was abolished, who it was abolished by and how he did it? Harriet Tubman's acts were courageous. She would've been (justifiably to those at the time) killed if caught. She stole and moved seventy slaves from the South to the North, and then into Canada. Were their lives in danger? They would've been freed within 10 years. Those who did it through LAW (like Lincoln and Wilberforce) emancipated millions. But if Harriet felt justified stealing to do so, then it must be right...right? But when Harriet wanted women to have the right to vote (noble goal, right?) did she stuff ballot boxes illegally? Did she dress women up as men and illegally vote? No. She waited patiently alongside Susan B Anthony and spend 30 years legally protesting and trying to get the law changed. And it was. So far you've attempted to use 1930's Jews and Harriet Tubman to justify taking the law into your own hands. Why aren't you bringing up Ghandi? Or Rosa Parks? Or Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Pope John Paul II? You know, people who changed millions of lives for the better by doing the right thing and protesting the right way. Not taking the law into their own hands to do something they personally thought was right.
Perhaps instead of fighting like a lunatic in the military, you should wait until someone resolved the situation legally through and a bunch of peaceful protest?
Ghandi, Parks, and King all broke existing laws. Not sure about the late pope. It is amazing you say the slaves would have been free in 10 years anyway. So, are you willing to spend another 10 years working dawn to dusk, whipped, raped, your children torn away and sold? Amazing. Actually, I didn't guess you had not read Les Mis because you are Christian, I guessed it because it's amazing that anyone can read it and side with the prosecution as you did. Life is indeed amazing.
Not to be pettily argumentative, but why is that amazing to you? Hadn't slavery abolition act after act been passed, restricting and abolishing slavery more and more across the country? Which, in your opinion, did more for the abolition movement...Harriet Tubman stealing 70 people from plantation owners who'd paid for their services, and who became far harsher on the remaining slaves; or evangelical Christian groups and freedmen like Frederick Douglass and the Langston brothers bringing the humanity of the African-American race to the masses and legally protesting their treatment? How many runaway slaves did Harriet steal from England, where Christian groups (led by Wilberforce) abolished slavery 50 years before we did it in the US? How could he possibly have freed millions of slaves worldwide, if not by theft? That's right....constitutional law. The closest I've ever come to your viewpoint was when former P.O.W.s came to speak to us at the Academy. Hero after hero came to speak to us, and to talk about the apparent (to some of us) dichotomy between the US Code of Conduct "make every effort to escape, and to aid others to escape" versus the maxim "never leave a man behind". It's illegal for us to "accept parole or special favors from the enemy". It's tough to understand, but it makes sense if you apply it to our core values of Honor, Courage and Commitment. The individual does not come above the society. In this case, if you can get a good deal, but your fellow prisoners get tortured and killed b/c of it, you're NOT doing the right thing if you take it and save your own skin. Valjean wasn't the sympathetic hero (iirc...it's been about 10 years) because he stole bread, it was because he wasn't able to escape his past as a criminal, even though he'd done his prison time (plus some, for trying to escape and not "do the time"), and his honor in doing the right thing to save the guy (don't remember his name) who was accused of being Valjean and other heroic acts, even saving the policeman's life. I'm not saying that the French law was correct, and it's obviously been changed. But to say "poor Valjean" when he stole the bread, knowing if caught he'd go to prison and be branded for life as a criminal...that's not sympathetic. That's a man making a choice and dealing with the consequences. His honorable actions the rest of the way were part of who he was, not the choice he'd made. Same for Fantine. She didn't go to prison, iirc, because she became a prostitute after being laid off. She went to prison b/c she attacked someone. But the book report can come later... What do you say to the baker who makes all that bread, and still has his family starve because, in your view, it's ok for people to steal from him if they're hungry? What do you say to the homeowner whose house it looted, and his pantry emptied, because there are hungry people out there? Who is someone to decide "forget this, I'm stealing from now on because it's good for me?" Laws. And lives. But your (or my) individual one doesn't count more than society.
Wow. Just wow. There's all kind of fuckery in that last post. "We should just wait around for law and not try to help our fellow slaves escape because hey, eventually we'll be free. Let's have another 10 years of rape, molestation, murder and being dehumanized . That Harriet Tubman only made it worse for us. D:" I don't even. Were their lives in danger? Was that a serious question? JFC.
Serious question. You answering any of mine? Anyone ever read about Nat Turner? Was what he did right? Did that help out his fellow slaves?
Since many don't read the long posts, it seems...I'll post some of the unanswered questions here. 1. Which, in your opinion, did more for the abolition movement...Harriet Tubman stealing 70 people from plantation owners who'd paid for their services, and who became far harsher on the remaining slaves; or evangelical Christian groups and freedmen like Frederick Douglass and the Langston brothers bringing the humanity of the African-American race to the masses and legally protesting their treatment? 2. How many runaway slaves did Harriet steal from England, where Christian groups (led by Wilberforce) abolished slavery 50 years before we did it in the US? How could he possibly have freed millions of slaves worldwide, if not by theft? Was it by constitutional law? 3. Did Nat Turner's break of the law help or hinder the treatment and eventual abolition of slavery in the US? 4. How does what Tubman and Turner (among others) did jibe with what the Reverend (Christian Alert!) Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said from prison: 5. In your worldview, does the individual come before the society?
OK, I'll bite: 1. Impossible to say because it's reliant on interpersonal utility comparisons. Tubman did more to abolish the slavery of those 70 slaves than all the rest did, so I'd guess they'd say she did. Other former slaves might point to guys like Douglass. Of course, people like Tubman and Douglass were working together in their eyes. 2. I think the POW analogy breaks down for slavery pretty quickly because, even in war (with formal sides), you're dealing with two parties that have established as set of rights and obligations toward each other. In Tubman's case, she really wasn't party to any sort of agreement, and therefore had no standing to argue it out legally. In the case of the English, it was Englishmen arguing with each other that ended slavery. I still wouldn't expect the slaves to sit there and be content to let other folks argue it out. 3. Turner's Rebellion hardened Southern attitudes, but I don't think that's much of an excuse to call it bad. Again, a slave doesn't have any legal standing to challenge his condition. He's basically, by definition, at war with the society that enslave him. Other folks within that society might argue on his behalf, but from the slave's perspective, it's not like he's on a particular side. Where I do see the POW analogy as making sense is in a slave rebellion. While a POW shouldn't accept voluntary release while other POWs are left behind, a POW should try to escape. But if a POW escapes, it's pretty likely that unless all POWs he's with escapes, the remainder will be treated more harshly because of it. But he can, and should try to escape regardless. 4. King was writing at a point when he at least had the right to argue his grievances. Turner wasn't. In a basic sense, I'd argue King was a "member of society", and therefore had obligations to that society even if they did things he disagreed with, wheras Turner was not a "member of society" but essentially a captive with no status. Tubman is hazier, but I'd argue she was at no way at odds with King because he established his line at non-violent disobedience to unjust laws. She didn't go out killing folks the way Turner did. 5. All in all, the goal of any society ought to be to further the interests of its individual members. The individual absolutely comes first because a just society is a voluntary association of individuals. I don't think we have any inalienable or natural rights, but a good society creates those rights by common agreement. When we enter into affiliation with others, we agree to mutually extend those rights and obligations to each other. So if you're a pissed off member of a community, you are obligated to use the community's means of resolving the disputes. If you're pissed off because you're not a member of a community that's doing you harm, for instance, by enslavement, I don't see where you have any obligation at all.
I spent yesterday working (gasp!) and following the Prop H8 hearing on live blog. I will take up some points and then I'm out. On BP, what did they do wrong? Are you kidding? 11 workers died. If you or I "accidentally" killed 11 people, you think we would not be arrested? Engineers had warned the platform was unsafe and just before the fire there were signs something was badly wrong that were disregarded. BP also killed tens of thousands of animals, some protected species. It is a crime to kill, even accidentally, a protected animal. It has been revealed that their spill clean up was copied and pasted from some other plan, listing as "expert" a scientist who had already been dead for years. They could have avoided or ameliorated the spill with numerous engineering measures which their own scientists recommended but the execs said too expensive or time consuming. It was reported yesterday that workers were not given protective gear, a legal requirement for cleaning toxic spills, and if they brought their own were threatened with being fired if they used it. All that is not enough to at least convene a Grand Jury to investigate criminal charges? That Valjean was not entirely sympathetic is the point. If you believe in the inherent worth and dignity of all people, it means all people. Even if they are not nice, are gay, are not Christian, are oil rig workers. In the Darius Miles thread, someone said he/she would like to see Darius lose both legs and lie starving under a bridge with rats chewing the stumps. I hope this was tongue in cheek. Because if you believe in worth and dignity of all people, no one should be starved or tortured. I would love to see Kobe Bryant lose every basketball game he plays and hear thunderous boos from the Staples Center crowd. I do not want to see Kobe Bryant tortured, his wife raped, his children starved. And this goes back to what I said about bible literalists showing impaired compassion. A tendency to want to "comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted". Let the thief's children starve, let the slaves suffer 10 more years, fire the pregnant teacher, but what did BP do wrong? Rep. Michele Bachman, who self-identifies as born-again Christian, just said yesterday that BP has to avoid getting shafted. It's a chicken & egg, I don't know if bible literalism causes such attitudes or if people with such attitudes are attracted to literalism. I said I "read" the King James bible, Brian said I "skimmed" it. Why? Because it did not make me a Christian? It is full of vagueness, contradictions, and I agree with Richard Dawkins famous description of the Hebrew god. You have slave owners and abolitionists, apartheid and Desmond Tutu, Ku Klux Klan and Martin Luther King, Rev. Troy Perry and Rev. Fred Phelps, all claiming allegience to the same book. To say "every word is true" of something with such wildly varying interpretations requires a lot of special pleading and Brian sure did a lot of that. Birds and bats? It's not that future taxonomists arbitrarily decided to separate them. It's not semantics. Birds and bats (mammals) had common vertebrate ancestors tens of millions of years ago but they are, quite simply, different. A lot different. I don't blame pre-scientific people for being pre-scientific, but in fact they were just plan wrong. To say Joshua made the sun stand still sure implies the sun goes around the earth. True, the sun does move: The solar system moves in and out of the sprial arms of the Milky Way Galaxy, the Galaxy revolves, the universe expands, but since none of these were known until well into the 20th century that is not what Joshua refers to. And you try to get around "kill the gays" by saying the wage of sin are death (puzzling, since saints and sinners all die) for everyone unless they accept Christ. Well, the bible explicitly says to kill the gays. It does not explicitly say to kill the straights, unless they are adulteresses. Incidentally, there are a lot of gay Christians, including born-again evangelical gays, who belong to churches and raise their children in their faith, but they are not considered exempt from "kill the gays". Civil war: You have a very static view of history. It is not Tubman vs. Union Army. It was BECAUSE of the activists and agitators like Tubman, Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, John Brown, Sojourner Truth et al that mass Anti-Slavery Societies were formed throughout the North, that public opnion largely turned against slavery. Slavery would have to go sooner or later as a country cannot develop based on two economic systems. Capitalism had to supersede pre-capitalist forms like slavery, but without that movement it may have been another 20, 50, 75 years (no way to tell of course). Without the pressure of that movement and of the initial ill fortunes of the Union Army, Lincoln would not have issued the Emancipation Proclamation. And you are wrong for giving all the credit to Christians, and evangelicals in particular. Christians, including evangelicals, were divided over slavery, as were Jews, as was the country. And all sides quoted the same "infallible" bible to support their position. As to Nat Turner, all I know is the reports from the winners. Obviously this is something I need to learn more about. Allegedly he set out to kill all whites. I'd have to get more information to find out if that was his plan or to kill all slaveowners or what. I oppose, politically, acts of individual terrorism. But I just don't have enough evidence to judge whether I'd consider him heroic but misguided, like the Jewish partisans in World War II who shot Nazi officers, or utterly reactionary, like the Crusades. As a scientist, I am not ashamed to say "I need more evidence". It is only the religious literalists who insist the answer to everything was written 2000-3000 years ago, no inquiry needed. I'm out. I will only say that sleeping with one's fiance 3 weeks before the wedding is a lot more moral in my eyes (as it harms no one) than killing 11 oil workers and destroying the Gulf ecosystem. No matter what some bible says.
It was a legit question. I don't know, for all the rhetoric, what BP's being charged with. Again, do you? Earlier this year a mine collapsed and killed many more than that. As far as I know, criminal charges weren't drawn up, as it was an industrial "accident". I'm not saying 11 lives is something to sneeze at all. Once again I ask, what are they being charged with, and I'll tell you if I agree. Are you claiming that the government's TOTAL APPROVAL allowing BP to build this rig and go with the "safety procedures" BP drew up is entirely BP's fault? I hadn't seen this reported, but it wouldn't surprise me. Every company in the world does cost-benefit trade studies...is it your view that the management of these scientists should be brought up on criminal charges? Hey, I agree that this should be investigated. But I think that right now you're at the same point I am (that we both have no idea what the government is doing, or what they've charged BP with or not, and why), it's just that you're following the "someone's gotta pay" approach and I'm following the "how about we figure out what's going on first?" approach. I think mine is more logical and compassionate. Of course. Did I say otherwise? Bull. "If I believe in the worth and dignity of all people" (I do, created in the image of God as it states in that King James Bible you read and dismiss) "no one should be starved or tortured? How does that logic jump occur, and what does starving, torturing, loving, dignifying, etc. have to do with the consequences of breaking laws? I would love to see Kobe Bryant lose every basketball game he plays and hear thunderous boos from the Staples Center crowd. I do not want to see Kobe Bryant tortured, his wife raped, his children starved.[/quote]I don't know what exactly this means. It's the "dignity of all people" aspect that I think is very important. I believe that all were made in the image of God, even beating-heart fetuses...one point I'm not sure you'd agree with in your "worth and dignity of all people" thread. But one point you seem to be skirting (and not just you--many in the thread) in your "no one should be starved or tortured" naivete is that this is not a happy world. People are inherently bad and self-serving. That's why societies were created, rules of law made and punishments enforced. What's stopping me from robbing you blind, because it's "torture" for me to see you with a television or good cookies or the ability to feed your pets better quality food than many 3rd-world children? Societal laws and the punishments that come with them. Deterrence from acting the way we want and not caring about others. Are "bible literalists" a demographic now that all believe the same thing? I've never seen your quote before. Where does that come from? It's not the teaching of the bible. All of those examples (except the BP one, which I don't believe) come from people dealing with the consequences of their illegal actions. I agree that BP has to "avoid getting shafted". I don't think the President should have the power to after-the-fact change a company's balance sheet to avoid giving dividends. That's "getting shafted". I don't think that getting punished for what you did wrong is getting shafted. BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE RULES, not some individuals "in their eyes" view of morality. And it may just be that your bias against those who have faith in God colors your judgement from being able to separate what one representative says from their religious beliefs. Can I infer, from your example, that since President Obama thinks punishment should come before due process of law, and that he isn't a bible literalist, that non-bible-literalists disagree with the Constitution? Nope, that's complete fallacy. because you threw out there that's you'd "read the bible cover to cover" as if it makes you an authority on what Christianity is. I noted that your recall and comprehension of it wouldn't allow you to pass a world literature test on that book. nope, because you cherry-picked fallacious talking points and did not comprehend what the book says. It's be like if I said "I read Les Mis, and Valjean became King of France". Completely wrong, even if I swear that I read the book. Is it chicken or egg? You didn't like that you were (in the eyes of the Bible) accountable to someone other than yourself, or that narcissists who do what makes them feel good aren't attracted to a book that says you are a created being and at the whim of your Creator? Special pleading? Where did I "plead" anything? In fact, my whole bent has been that you can't rely on "special pleading and interpretation", that you have to just follow the rules. In my worldview, the Creator knew. No one knew that Babylon would be sacked hundreds of years in advance, or the exact time when Israel would be overrun and scattered. But that's in the Bible, too. There's so much misunderstanding and hate here that I can't possibly answer it all. I'd love to take you out to dinner sometime, because I think that anonymous internet debate allows one to not care about the other person's viewpoint, which would be considered rude in face-to-face conversation, and I don't believe at heart that you're a rude person. your bias (logically, but it's still there) twists this into a demographical argument. There's no difference b/w a "gay" and a "straight" except in the mode with which they have sex. We can both be Blazer fans, fans of history, fans of French literature, people who enjoy sailing or cooking or cats...the only thing that makes someone "homosexual" is their mode of sex. And the bible teaches that all sexual immorality (GAY OR STRAIGHT) is sin. It teaches that lust and lying and parental disobedience are sin. It teaches that you aren't your own, and are subject to those rulers over you. It teaches that you don't get to invoke God's name as reason why you get to break laws. It tells slaves who've run away to go back to their masters. And it says that you can be a born-again Christian committing the sin of homosexual intercourse just as if I was a born-again Christian who committed the sin of unbiblical divorce just as if I was in a born-again Christian who didn't tithe. I don't know what this means. You've continually disparaged my education and not responded after being shown to be wrong. Really? So the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Act of 1780 was because of people who came 50 years later? The compromises of 1820 and following were because of the future actions of children? It couldn't be that slave trade had been outlawed since the late 18th-century? Of course, and I'm not discounting the efforts of the abolitionists. If that's the impression I gave, I apologize. What I was trying to say is that evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the movement, Speculation. It's honorable to say that you need more proof, and I'll never disparage someone for saying "i'll have to look that up" or "I just don't know". There are plenty of things I don't know. How can you consider him "heroic but misguided", and yet believe in the "dignity of all people"? BP should be punished for an industrial accident that killed 11, but a man who sets out to kill hundreds is "heroic but misguided"? As to the "science vs. bible" issue, the part that I feel you're missing is that NOT everything has been proven/written/etc. I don't know what Joshua did (your birds v. bats argument's incorrect, but I'll stick with the "sun" one since you brought it up) to make the sun stop, other than someone wrote about it as if it had happened. When you don't have proof, you say there is no God. When I don't have proof, I fall on the side that say I believe in God. I don't expect you or anyone else to understand, believe with me or even care that I do. I get it. And your philosophy seems to be that what's in "your eyes" holds some better rationale than society's. Society has given you the right to think that, and not to be discriminated against by anyone who's view is not that way. The great thing about law is that it protects all of us from people with your viewpoints. Osama bin Laden justifies murdering 3000 people in NYC (not fish, not some industrial accident) by saying that it's moral in his eyes. He's just eradicating those who fornicate, are homosexual, commit usury, etc. We're protected from zealots who think that if you kill a cow for food, you should be killed as well. We're protected from people who think it's moral to take the fruit of everyone's toil, and divide it equally among everyone. I'm sure that if Tony Heyward had gone to the school and taught by example that killing 11 people purposely was ok, he wouldn't have a job teaching those children, either. I love that you place a large amount of value in the lives of 11 people killed in an industrial accident and "destroying the gulf ecosystem". I do also. And it WILL be cleaned up, and those who have BROKEN THE LAWS OF SOCIETY will be made to pay for it. No one can say "it's only 11 people who worked for a corrupt company" or "it's only a bunch of fish and shrimp, IN MY EYES". They are punished by the rules of society, and when that happens they are still afforded the dignity given to someone created in the image of God. We're on the same side here in terms of punishment, and i don't know how you've manipulated it like I think BP is blameless. When you asked if I thought BP should be punished criminally, I asked what charges they'd been brought up on. Still nothing from you on that. I imagine at some point, in the midst of his "ass-kicking", that the President will attempt to mete out punishment. What's fascinating to me is that you advocate on one hand for a company to be punished for doing wrong, while on the other advocating for general anarchy based on some "everyone can decide what's moral for themselves" kick. I'm sure I missed something going through this. Good luck with your work. Hopefully it allows you to come back here soon.
"A foreigner who knew about faces once passed through Athens and told Socrates to his face that he was a monstrum--that he harbored in himself all the bad vices and appetites. And Socrates merely answered: "You know me, sir!"
another of the tenets of my worldview is that "I'm the worst sinner I know". Because I know what's in my heart...I know the stuff that doesn't come to the surface much, but it's there nonetheless. I know when I've looked at a woman and lusted, even if I didn't go sleep with her. I know when I've been uncharitable, even if it looks to an outsider like I gave the homeless guy my pocket change. I know when I stop myself from yelling at someone for frustrating me, when in reality it's my impatience and lack of grace to others that's the issue. But those are between me and God, and it's His forgiveness I pray for. If, however, I was to act on my sin...if I was to do one of those things that are against societal laws (like, for instance, breaking a contract with your employer or jaywalking or stealing bread) I'm at the mercy of the societal justice.
Jesus was a criminal. In fact his crime was capitol offense. Did he accept his fate because "those are the rules"? Did he commit his crime in God's name or was he being a selfish sinner? This thread has drifted into some very philosophical territory but I wanted to get back to the situation that started this thread. Legally she is suing for discrimination because she was fired for having sex outside of marriage while people in marriage having sex kept their job. She was discriminated based on her marriage status. She also suing for invasion privacy because the principal told everyone she was fired for fornication. Morally, You can't say this act is rooted in the teachings of Jesus. A firing full of love and forgiveness, no. Accountability and responsibility, yes. She may not be excommunicated but she's lost her means of subsistence and has been embarrassed in front of her whole church and community. Where are the students of the school going to see the love and forgiveness in this situation?
I'd suggest the Gospels to you. Jesus committed no offenses, not even among the Roman law. Even Pilate said so. The Jews thought he was blaspheming, though he was actually telling the truth. He didn't fight against his death, and asked the Father for forgiveness for those who crucified him. Fair enough. She can sue for whatever she wants to, but she was fired for not fulfilling the code of conduct for teaching at that institution. She wasn't discriminated against for her marriage status, she was fired for breaking the code of conduct of her employer. Again, I bring up the airline voucher issue--would I have had grounds to sue for discrimination based upon Frequent Flyer status if I'd have been fired for keeping the voucher the airline gave me for making me miss my flight? It's not illegal to collect free flights. It's against my company's code of conduct to do so. I don't think I've made that claim. In fact, I've been saying all along that her defenders here are deliberately confusing the two issues. First, an employer (as I see it, those better versed in employment law please correct me if I'm wrong) has a right to fire whoever they want, whenever they want, especially for cause. Deliberately violating the code of conduct would have been a justified cause by any employer in America. The school isn't her church, it's her place of employment. If she'd have been fired for violating the code of conduct at Macy's, she wouldn't be able to call "discrimination". It's only because this private school claims to be a Christian one that this is even an issue, and it's being brought up by those who are biased for whatever reason against faith, and Christianity specifically. So what you're saying is, her decision to violate her employer's code of conduct had repercussions that shows her decision was probably a bad one? I'm shocked! While I'm happy that you want students to see "love and forgiveness", I'd be interested in hearing what punishment you'd give a student of that school for stealing someone's money or vandalizing school property. Would you let them continue without punishment, since Christian schools are supposed to be about "love and forgiveness"? What about my earlier questions about a deacon stealing from the offering plate, or a convicted statutory rapist. While they should be forgiven upon their repentance, and loved as brothers who just happened to sin, they would not be placed back into positions of handling money or teaching toddlers, respectively. It's funny to me that people who self-admittedly don't understand Christianity or the Bible trying to debate a civil court case's merits by mis-applying Christian principles to someone who admitted to the mwrongdoing in the workplace.
Married people having extramarital sex would have been treated identically, so it's not disparate treatment. I'm no lawyer, but I'd say she's clearly on stronger ground here. From what I'm reading, there's a three-pronged test for "embarrassing disclosure": Clearly the event took place in private and there was no consent, so the crux of the issue is whether it was "newsworthy". The only way I see that it could be is if the students' parents had a right to know the reason for the dismissal, which I doubt, so I imagine she will win this portion of her suit.
