Stupid Christian School Punishes Pregnant Teacher

[wy]

Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.

So there was this teacher at some Christian school in Texas who got
pregnant - and, of course, this has to take place in Texas. Normally,
that shouldn't be a problem, except that she was unmarried. So what
did the school do? Fire her. Apparently, she contravened the morals
clause in her contract, which apparently is defined only as someone
who must be "a Christian role model" in all its vagueness.

So let me get this straight. If she was a great teacher and she had
been at the school for years and had exhibited all the "Christian role
model" qualities that the school could be proud of, but then she got
pregnant while unmarried, how does that suddenly negate all the
"Christian role model" behavior of hers and make her now worthy of
being fired and banished to hell to live with Satan?

Not only that, but would they have done the same to an unmarried
teacher who might've been raped and decided she would keep the child
rather than abort it? Seems there would be a bit of a conflict of
interest there for the school because on the one hand she engaged in
"anti-Christian role model" behavior by being raped, yet on the other
hand she maintained her Christian role model behavior by refusing to
abort the child. What's the school to do? And if they should decide
to keep her on, why wouldn't they keep the other unmarried pregnant
teacher? Both would still look very pregnant to all the students, but
by different circumstances. Or doesn't it matter how they got
pregnant, the fact that they are unmarried women who got pregnant by
whichever means is a crime in itself. Meanwhile, the guys who got
them pregnant go unpunished and get to keep their jobs.

This really shows the idiocy of church ideology and its stranglehold
on people's lives and livelihood, especially on women, the very people
that male Christian ideologues consistently fail to understand.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=us_c2#/video/us/2012/04/11/dnt-teacher-fired-for-being-preggers.wfaa

[David Hartung]

On 04/12/2012 10:27 AM, wy wrote:
> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.

What you think is not relevant. In getting pregnant out of wedlock, the
woman violate the rules of her employment. This fully justifies her
termination.

[wy]

But what if she had gotten raped? Would she still have been punished
for something she wasn't responsible for? And again, what about the
male half, shouldn't he get fired from whatever job he has, even if
outside the school? And what's so terrible about the teacher living
up to being a Christian role model by demonstrating to her students
that she's not interested in having an abortion, which is, after all,
the Christian thing to do? Wouldn't that be setting a positive
example to the students that if they screw up, there's nothing to be
ashamed about to the extent of wanting to abort? In fact, the shame
of her pregnancy is magnified to the students as a negative when the
school kicked her out, which actually then sends the wrong signals to
them - that if they got pregnant while unmarried and they still wanted
to keep their jobs, then the only option would be to abort, which
would be going against Christian teaching. Do you see the stupidity
and hypocrisy that religion reduces itself to and that people like you
perpetuate?

[David Hartung]

On 04/12/2012 09:23 PM, wy wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:03 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 10:27 AM, wy wrote:
>>
>>> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
>>
>> What you think is not relevant. In getting pregnant out of wedlock, the
>> woman violate the rules of her employment. This fully justifies her
>> termination.
>
> But what if she had gotten raped?

She was not raped, therefore it is not an issue.

[wy]

Fuck, just answer the question. It could very well be an issue at
some point and it actually might've been an issue already but swept
under the rug and nobody knows about it. Make a stand on the salient
point of the question, if you have any rock-solid beliefs on it,
because it gets to the core of the legitimacy of the "rule". If you
can't defend it, then not only does it question your own belief on it,
but it would suggest that a lot of things you haven't been able to
defend is due to your inability to convincingly articulate your
stance, which then makes a lot of your precious views based on
falsehoods. So you can either defend your stance on what is a
"Christian rule" that you appear to support or you can admit that
you're too stupid to argue in defense of it because even you realize
it's a stupid rule. There's no ands, ifs, buts or in-betweens about
it. Defend what you believe and see if you actually do believe it
yourself without gagging.

[David Hartung]

On 04/12/2012 09:40 PM, wy wrote:
> On Apr 12, 10:26 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 09:23 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 10:03 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2012 10:27 AM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
>>
>>>> What you think is not relevant. In getting pregnant out of wedlock, the
>>>> woman violate the rules of her employment. This fully justifies her
>>>> termination.
>>
>>> But what if she had gotten raped?
>>
>> She was not raped, therefore it is not an issue.
>
> Fuck, just answer the question.

No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.

[Falstaff]

What Would Jesus Do?

[First. Post]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Falstaff <jaxfa...@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>On Apr 12, 10:41 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 09:40 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 12, 10:26 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>  wrote:
>> >> On 04/12/2012 09:23 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Apr 12, 10:03 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>    wrote:
>> >>>> On 04/12/2012 10:27 AM, wy wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
>>
>> >>>> What you think is not relevant. In getting pregnant out of wedlock, the
>> >>>> woman violate the rules of her employment. This fully justifies her
>> >>>> termination.
>>
>> >>> But what if she had gotten raped?
>>
>> >> She was not raped, therefore it is not an issue.
>>
>> > Fuck, just answer the question.
>>
>> No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.
>
>What Would Jesus Do?

A company can fire an employee for behavior that it deems to be a bad reflection
of the company.
They can fire an employee for smoking even if off the premises and off the
clock. Some companies will terminate an employee if they get caught drinking
off the clock. In a lot of jurisdictions a police officer is not allowed to
stop at the store on their way home from work and buy a beer while still in
uniform as it presents a negative image to the public.
If you can fire someone for smoking or drinking then you can fire them for
fucking around and getting pregnant and setting a negative example for the kids.
In most states an employer can fire someone for any reason under the sun.
The only difference the reason makes in most cases is in whether or not the
employee is eligible for unemployment benefits.

[wy]

I started the topic, not you. I've already defined the parameters of
the topic and have included both the unmarried teacher and raped
teacher scenarios in the original post along with the issues of firing
one for not following a "Christian moral code" and abortion as a by-
product of that "Christian moral code" that, within the context of the
rape example, invalidates the "moral code" as anything that can be
deemed as legitimate. That is the topic in its expansiveness. I see
you have nothing to defend to the contrary of what I said so therefore
you can't possibly legitimately believe in whatever contrary stance
you have, which makes your stance be one based on something arbitrary,
artificial and a falsehood overall.

[wy]

On Apr 13, 12:04 am, First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net>
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 20:45:38 -0700 (PDT), Falstaff <jaxfalst...@yahoo.com>

As Hartung says, stick to the topic. Otherwise, shut up.

[trainguard]

Forgive her (assuming that there was anything to forgive), keep her
employed, and let her have her job back (if she still wanted it) after
the baby arrived. Any mainstream Christian would tell you that!

Dr. Barry Worthington



- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[David Hartung]

Good question.

What does scripture tell us?

[David Hartung]

He has, much more so than have you.

The point is that the school was well within their rights to fire the
teacher.

[David Hartung]

Upon what Scripture do you base your answer?

[Steve]

Worthington actually thinks he can speak for Jesus. The homosexual
clown takes pomposity to a whole new level.

[David Hartung]

On 04/12/2012 11:40 PM, wy wrote:
> On Apr 12, 11:41 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 09:40 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 12, 10:26 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>> On 04/12/2012 09:23 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 10:03 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/12/2012 10:27 AM, wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
>>
>>>>>> What you think is not relevant. In getting pregnant out of wedlock, the
>>>>>> woman violate the rules of her employment. This fully justifies her
>>>>>> termination.
>>
>>>>> But what if she had gotten raped?
>>
>>>> She was not raped, therefore it is not an issue.
>>
>>> Fuck, just answer the question.
>>
>> No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.
>
> I started the topic, not you.

Very true. My point is simple, the teacher was not raped, she was
engaging in voluntary sex, from which she became pregnant. Because the
teacher was not raped, the school did not discuss what they would have
done had she been raped. Therefore, what would have been done had she
been raped is not a rational part of the discussion.

[linuxgal]

Falstaff wrote:

>
> What Would Jesus Do?
>

Flip some tables and crack his whip.

[Man_of_Mind]

On 4/13/2012 6:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>
> On 04/13/2012 02:45 AM, trainguard wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 13, 4:45 am, Falstaff<jaxfalst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 12, 10:41 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:

--->

>>>> No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.
>>>
>>> What Would Jesus Do?
>>
>> Forgive her (assuming that there was anything to forgive), keep her
>> employed, and let her have her job back (if she still wanted it) after
>> the baby arrived. Any mainstream Christian would tell you that!
>
> Upon what Scripture do you base your answer?

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"..

--Rendering unto Caesarean that which is Caesarean's..

[trainguard]

"If ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also
forgive you." (Matthew 6:14).

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
stone at her." (John 8;7)

"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not
be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven....(Luke 6:37)

"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
us."

Lord's Prayer

[David Hartung]

Not bad. How does that apply to our situation?

> --Rendering unto Caesarean that which is Caesarean's..

Your play on words notwithstanding, how does this apply to a dispute
between a Christian school teacher and the Christian school which
employed her?

[David Hartung]

Thank you Doc.

The situation with the teacher is simple. The terms of her employment
required her to follow a certain code of conduct. In becoming pregnant
she violated that code. This gave the school grounds to terminate her
employment. There is much about the situation we do not know, but given
what I have observed of people over the years, my guess is that this did
not just crop up out of the blue.

For example, had this lady let herself go one night and as a result got
pregnant,and had she then gone to the school and told them what was
going on. Had she then told them that she had made a mistake and that it
would not happen again, the school might well have found some way to
keep her on their staff.

The woman's public comments tell me that she does not see her actions as
being wrong, and it is most likely this as much as anything else which
caused her to be terminated. Forgiveness does not mean that we do not
suffer the consequences of our sin. This is especially true in a
ministerial vocation. In most churches, if the pastor goes to to the
church and confesses to having an affair with one of the women of the
church, the church will forgive him, but he will still be removed as the
pastor. In the end, this is the situation with the teacher. The school
considers their teachers to be ministers.

Doc, to respond directly to the passages you provided, they are goos,
and about what I expected. However, they are incomplete. The Church has
been given the Authority to forgive and to refuse to forgive sin(John
19:22-23). To forgive is called absolution. Absolution is announced upon
the confession of sin. If one does not confess that he(or she) has
sinned, then absolution is withheld. As I pointed out above, the woman
in question does not appear to believe that she has done anything wrong.

[pyjamarama]

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:27:06 AM UTC-4, wy wrote:

Self-admitted jew-hating fanatic wy calls for his "final solution", thusly

> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.

We know all about your desire to do away with the religious, asshole...

You already told us:

"Nothing very interesting about it. It's just Jews being Jews, only
in it for themselves." – Putrid little nazi 'wy' shows his true, anti-semitic colors on Sept. 14th, 2011

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/2a46a06cbaa601d9?hl=en&dmode=source

[wy]

That doesn't answer the question I asked. Answer that specific
question.

[wy]

Well, you should know. You're the preacher man and the question was
posed to you. Answer it, preacher man.

[David Hartung]

No.

[wy]

Don't you think it's funny that a religion that honors the family so
much would terminate the employment of a woman who is about to start a
family, regardless of the circumstances? Do you see the hypocrisy,
Hartung? You probably don't, but do you see it just the same?

>
> For example, had this lady let herself go one night and as a result got
> pregnant,and had she then gone to the school and told them what was
> going on. Had she then told them that she had made a mistake and that it
> would not happen again, the school might well have found some way to
> keep her on their staff.

But she would still be pregnant as an unmarried woman which, in the
eyes of this school, sends the wrong message, so why would they want
to keep her on if she admitted to a "mistake" and that it won't happen
again when it's already too late and that it has happened and now
she's knocked up? You're strangling on your own illogic, Hartung.

>
> The woman's public comments tell me that she does not see her actions as
> being wrong, and it is most likely this as much as anything else which
> caused her to be terminated.

The public comments have nothing to do with anything, they are simply
after the fact and she can say whatever she wants in her defense.

> Forgiveness does not mean that we do not
> suffer the consequences of our sin. This is especially true in a
> ministerial vocation. In most churches, if the pastor goes to to the
> church and confesses to having an affair with one of the women of the
> church, the church will forgive him, but he will still be removed as the
> pastor. In the end, this is the situation with the teacher. The school
> considers their teachers to be ministers.

Schools are not churches.

[David Hartung]

Do you ever read what is posted? Or is your ability to read as pathetic
as your ability to write?

[wy]

But what about the teacher who would be raped? I included both
scenarios to see if there's any real justification for that rule in
all circumstances. If it applies to one, should it also apply to the
other, with the only difference being that one was raped and the other
wasn't, but the outcome is still the same for both - pregnancy.
Should the raped woman also be fired? It gets to the very heart of
the nature of the rule. And if the raped woman shouldn't be fired and
she still walks around fat as a whale from pregnancy, how is that any
different in the eyes of the student than the other woman who wasn't
raped walking around fat as a whale from pregnancy as well? Come on,
Hartung, use your thinking machine to understand if the rule makes any
sense or not. Just because it's a "rule" doesn't mean it
automatically makes sense, especially when it doesn't factor in
punishment for the male responsible for getting either woman
pregnant. Why should only the woman suffer consequences?

[wy]

No answer simply means you actually don't believe in the rule as a
legitimate one since you can't articulate a defense of it on your part.

[wy]

What does scripture tell us? It's a simple question you asked. So
answer it, preacher man. What does it tell us about what Jesus would
do?

[B_v_M]

The log in your eye, the view from here, berren, etc..

Have you hacked his router yet?

[lsrlts]

Amen.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:58 AM, wy wrote:
> you actually don't believe

Shut up you idiot canuck troll.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:25 AM, wy wrote:
> That doesn't answer the question I asked.

Good, now get out of here, troll.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 8:24 AM, wy wrote:
> Answer it, preacher man.

Drop dead, canuck troll.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 9:00 AM, wy wrote:
> What does scripture tell us?

What proof do we have YOU read it, troll?

[wy]

You first, Israelites.

[wy]

You first, Israelites.

[wy]

On Apr 13, 12:17 pm, lsrlts <dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:

You first, Israelites.

[wy]

What proof do we have YOU understand it, Isrealites?

[lsrlts]

No, you.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 9:25 AM, wy wrote:

No you , nazi.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 9:25 AM, wy wrote:

No you, nazi.

[lsrlts]

Shut up, nazi.

[Richard Steel]

> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.

> So there was this teacher at some Christian school in Texas who got
> pregnant -

An UNMARRIED teacher.

> and, of course, this has to take place in Texas.

So what?

> Normally,
> that shouldn't be a problem, except that she was unmarried.

And she was working at a Christian School.

> So what
> did the school do?

They should have fired her.

>  Fire her.>

Good.

>  Apparently, she contravened the morals
> clause in her contract, which apparently is defined only as someone
> who must be "a Christian role model" in all its vagueness.

Nothing vague about it. Getting knocked up without being married is
definitely not Christian Role Model behavior.

She signed a contract - she did not live up to the terms of her
contract. Not sure where there's a problem.

> So let me get this straight.  If she was a great teacher

We have no indication at all if she was a "great teacher". We do know
that she didn't live up to the conditions of the contract she signed.

> and she had
> been at the school for years

Three years.

> and had exhibited all the "Christian role
> model" qualities that the school could be proud of,>

Which nobody claims.

> but then she got
> pregnant while unmarried, >

"Got?" No, it was a CHOICE on her part. She CHOSE to violate the
terms of her contract.

>how does that suddenly negate all the
> "Christian role model" behavior of hers and make her now worthy of
> being fired >

Because she was in volation of the terms of the contract that she
willingly signed.

> and banished to hell to live with Satan?

No one's saying that she's going to Hell. Christians offer help and
support to single mothers - we just don't want them teaching out
school children.

Since you're so concerned about motherhood, where's your outrage when
Hillary attacked cancer survivor and MS sufferer Ann Romney for daring
to be a stay at home mom?

> Not only that, but would they have done the same to an unmarried
> teacher who might've been raped and decided she would keep the child
> rather than abort it?  Seems there would be a bit of a conflict of
> interest there for the school because on the one hand she engaged in
> "anti-Christian role model" behavior by being raped, yet on the other
> hand she maintained her Christian role model behavior by refusing to
> abort the child.  What's the school to do?  And if they should decide
> to keep her on, why wouldn't they keep the other unmarried pregnant
> teacher?  Both would still look very pregnant to all the students, but
> by different circumstances.  Or doesn't it matter how they got
> pregnant, the fact that they are unmarried women who got pregnant by
> whichever means is a crime in itself.  Meanwhile, the guys who got
> them pregnant go unpunished and get to keep their jobs.
>
> This really shows the idiocy of church ideology and its stranglehold
> on people's lives and livelihood, especially on women, the very people
> that male Christian ideologues consistently fail to understand.
>

> http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=us_c2#/video/us/2012/04/11/dnt-teacher-...

[Baron von Mind]

On 4/13/2012 8:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:

> On 04/13/2012 08:07 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 6:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>

>>> On 04/13/2012 02:45 AM, trainguard wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 13, 4:45 am, Falstaff<jaxfalst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 12, 10:41 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:

>> --->

>>>>>> No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> What Would Jesus Do?
>>>>
>>>> Forgive her (assuming that there was anything to forgive), keep her
>>>> employed, and let her have her job back (if she still wanted it) after
>>>> the baby arrived. Any mainstream Christian would tell you that!
>>>

>>> Upon what Scripture do you base your answer?
>>
>> "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"..
>

> Not bad. How does that apply to our situation?

I don't have a 'situation' with you..

>> --Rendering unto Caesarean that which is Caesarean's..
>

> Your play on words notwithstanding

You first..

--I'm not going to judge her, or the school this time..

[B_v_M]

On 4/13/2012 10:20 AM, Baron von Mind wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 8:20 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 04/13/2012 08:07 AM, Man_of_Mind wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2012 6:16 AM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04/13/2012 02:45 AM, trainguard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 13, 4:45 am, Falstaff<jaxfalst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 12, 10:41 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
>>> --->
>>>>>>> No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What Would Jesus Do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Forgive her (assuming that there was anything to forgive), keep her
>>>>> employed, and let her have her job back (if she still wanted it) after
>>>>> the baby arrived. Any mainstream Christian would tell you that!
>>>>
>>>> Upon what Scripture do you base your answer?
>>>
>>> "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone"..
>>
>> Not bad. How does that apply to our situation?
>
> I don't have a 'situation' with you..

You're not lurking his IP hard?

>
>>> --Rendering unto Caesarean that which is Caesarean's..
>>
>> Your play on words notwithstanding
>
> You first..
>
> --I'm not going to judge her, or the school this time..

But will you hack his router, berren?

[trainguard]

On Apr 13, 2:40 pm, David Hartung <da...@hotmaiil.com> wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 08:08 AM, trainguard wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 13, 12:16 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>  wrote:

> >> On 04/13/2012 02:45 AM, trainguard wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 13, 4:45 am, Falstaff<jaxfalst...@yahoo.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On Apr 12, 10:41 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>    wrote:
>

> >>>>> On 04/12/2012 09:40 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>>>>> On Apr 12, 10:26 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 04/12/2012 09:23 PM, wy wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Apr 12, 10:03 pm, David Hartung<da...@hotmaiil.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 04/12/2012 10:27 AM, wy wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>> Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
>

> >>>>>>>>> What you think is not relevant. In getting pregnant out of wedlock, the
> >>>>>>>>> woman violate the rules of her employment. This fully justifies her
> >>>>>>>>> termination.
>
> >>>>>>>> But what if she had gotten raped?
>
> >>>>>>> She was not raped, therefore it is not an issue.
>
> >>>>>> Fuck, just answer the question.
>

> >>>>> No, because it is not a part of the discussion. Stick to the topic.
>
> >>>> What Would Jesus Do?
>
> >>> Forgive her (assuming that there was anything to forgive), keep her
> >>> employed, and let her have her job back (if she still wanted it) after
> >>> the baby arrived. Any mainstream Christian would tell you that!
>
> >> Upon what Scripture do you base your answer?
>

> > "If ye forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father will also
> > forgive you." (Matthew 6:14).
>
> > "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said
> > unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a
> > stone at her." (John 8;7)
>
> > "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not
> > be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven....(Luke 6:37)
>
> > "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
> > us."
>
> > Lord's Prayer
>
> > Dr. Barry Worthington
>
> Thank you Doc.
>
> The situation with the teacher is simple. The terms of her employment
> required her to follow a certain code of conduct. In becoming pregnant
> she violated that code.

We don't actually know that. It could be someone's 'interpretation' of
her terms of employment.

>This gave the school grounds to terminate her
> employment. There is much about the situation we do not know,

Indeed.

>but given
> what I have observed of people over the years, my guess is that this did
> not just crop up out of the blue.

Well, pregnancies sometimes do!

>
> For example, had this lady let herself go one night and as a result got
> pregnant,and had she then gone to the school and told them what was
> going on. Had she then told them that she had made a mistake and that it
> would not happen again, the school might well have found some way to
> keep her on their staff.
>

> The woman's public comments tell me that she does not see her actions as
> being wrong, and it is most likely this as much as anything else which
> caused her to be terminated.

Why? Perhaps she sincerely believes this.

>Forgiveness does not mean that we do not
> suffer the consequences of our sin.

Who are we to judge whether she was sinful or not?

>This is especially true in a
> ministerial vocation. In most churches, if the pastor goes to to the
> church and confesses to having an affair with one of the women of the
> church, the church will forgive him, but he will still be removed as the
> pastor. In the end, this is the situation with the teacher. The school
> considers their teachers to be ministers.

And is that in her contract? I think not.

>
> Doc, to respond directly to the passages you provided, they are goos,
> and about what I expected. However, they are incomplete.

Really?

>The Church has
> been given the Authority to forgive and to refuse to forgive sin(John
> 19:22-23). To forgive is called absolution. Absolution is announced upon
> the confession of sin. If one does not confess that he(or she) has
> sinned, then absolution is withheld. As I pointed out above, the woman
> in question does not appear to believe that she has done anything wrong.

I'm not sure that this is relevant. Christians are commanded by Christ
not to judge other people in these matters, lest we be judged
ourselves. It would surely be a mark of true Christianity for the
school to accept her for what she is and not punish her by showing her
the door.

Dr. Barry Worthington



- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[trainguard]

On Apr 13, 6:15 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
> > So there was this teacher at some Christian school in Texas who got
> > pregnant -
>
> An UNMARRIED teacher.

Why does this matter?

>
> >  and, of course, this has to take place in Texas.
>
> So what?

Where the nuts come from.....

"If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas!"

>
> > Normally,
> > that shouldn't be a problem, except that she was unmarried.
>
> And she was working at a Christian School.

Why is that important?

>
> > So what
> > did the school do?
>
> They should have fired her.

And how would that have demonstrated Christian principle?

>
> >  Fire her.>
>
> Good.

Not a Christian, Richard?

>
> >   Apparently, she contravened the morals
> > clause in her contract, which apparently is defined only as someone
> > who must be "a Christian role model" in all its vagueness.
>
> Nothing vague about it.  Getting knocked up without being married is
> definitely not Christian Role Model behavior.

How would you know? You are as much a Christian as you clain to be a
conservative.....

>
> She signed a contract - she did not live up to the terms of her
> contract.  Not sure where there's a problem.
>
> > So let me get this straight.  If she was a great teacher
>
> We have no indication at all if she was a "great teacher".  We do know
> that she didn't live up to the conditions of the contract she signed.

In someone's 'opinion'....someone probably like you....

>
> >  and she had
> > been at the school for years
>
> Three years.
>
> > and had exhibited all the "Christian role
> > model" qualities that the school could be proud of,>
>
> Which nobody claims.
>
> >  but then she got
> > pregnant while unmarried, >
>
> "Got?"  No, it was a CHOICE on her part.  She CHOSE to violate the
> terms of her contract.

There but for the Grace of God, Richard.....

>
> >how does that suddenly negate all the
> > "Christian role model" behavior of hers and make her now worthy of
> > being fired >
>
> Because she was in volation of the terms of the contract that she
> willingly signed.
>
> > and banished to hell to live with Satan?
>
> No one's saying that she's going to Hell.  Christians offer help and
> support to single mothers - we just don't want them teaching out
> school children.

Why not?

What a horrible little person you are!

Dr. Barry Worthington

>
> Since you're so concerned about motherhood, where's your outrage when
> Hillary attacked cancer survivor and MS sufferer Ann Romney for daring
> to be a stay at home mom?
>
>
>
> > Not only that, but would they have done the same to an unmarried
> > teacher who might've been raped and decided she would keep the child
> > rather than abort it?  Seems there would be a bit of a conflict of
> > interest there for the school because on the one hand she engaged in
> > "anti-Christian role model" behavior by being raped, yet on the other
> > hand she maintained her Christian role model behavior by refusing to
> > abort the child.  What's the school to do?  And if they should decide
> > to keep her on, why wouldn't they keep the other unmarried pregnant
> > teacher?  Both would still look very pregnant to all the students, but
> > by different circumstances.  Or doesn't it matter how they got
> > pregnant, the fact that they are unmarried women who got pregnant by
> > whichever means is a crime in itself.  Meanwhile, the guys who got
> > them pregnant go unpunished and get to keep their jobs.
>
> > This really shows the idiocy of church ideology and its stranglehold
> > on people's lives and livelihood, especially on women, the very people
> > that male Christian ideologues consistently fail to understand.
>

> >http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=us_c2#/video/us/2012/04/11/dnt-teacher-...- Hide quoted text -

[First. Post]

Wonder how come little wy believes that they have any authority whatsoever to
demand anyone do a damned thing?
Particularly when it comes to questioning of religious doctrine when, as a self
provlaimed atheist, they have no idea what they are talking about in the first
place.

[wy]

On Apr 13, 4:18 pm, First. Post <OccupiersDumberThanD...@invalid.net>
wrote:

Did you just expel gas out of some backside orifice of yours?

[wy]

On Apr 13, 1:15 pm, Richard Steel <rsteel2...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
> > So there was this teacher at some Christian school in Texas who got
> > pregnant -
>
> An UNMARRIED teacher.

Irrelevant. A quarter of the babies born today are born out of
wedlock and more than half the couples living together today are co-
habiting outside of marriage.

>
> >  and, of course, this has to take place in Texas.
>
> So what?

Probably the second stupidest state after Mississippi. But you're too
stupid to know that.

>
> > Normally,
> > that shouldn't be a problem, except that she was unmarried.
>
> And she was working at a Christian School.

Irrelevant.

>
> > So what
> > did the school do?
>
> They should have fired her.
>
> >  Fire her.>
>
> Good.

But you'd let the guy who screwed her keep his, right? It takes two
to tango, stupid.

>
> >   Apparently, she contravened the morals
> > clause in her contract, which apparently is defined only as someone
> > who must be "a Christian role model" in all its vagueness.
>
> Nothing vague about it.  Getting knocked up without being married is
> definitely not Christian Role Model behavior.

Same thing for a single woman who got raped. This seems to be a
question no idiot right wingnut can answer without gagging on his own
response: should the raped unmarried woman also be fired?

>
> She signed a contract - she did not live up to the terms of her
> contract.  Not sure where there's a problem.

She's starting a family - the heart and soul of Christianity. And
they still punish her for it?

>
> > So let me get this straight.  If she was a great teacher
>
> We have no indication at all if she was a "great teacher".

That's why I said "if," stupid. Besides, it's irrelevant if she was
or wasn't.

> We do know
> that she didn't live up to the conditions of the contract she signed.

Nothing in the contract says anything about not getting pregnant under
any circumstances whatsoever.

>
> >  and she had
> > been at the school for years
>
> Three years.

That's still yearS, stupid. Can't you count? Boy, you're stupid.

>
> > and had exhibited all the "Christian role
> > model" qualities that the school could be proud of,>
>
> Which nobody claims.

She would've been fired long before this happened if she hadn't
exhibited any Christian role model qualities. Boy, you're really on a
stupid roll.

>
> >  but then she got
> > pregnant while unmarried, >
>
> "Got?"  No, it was a CHOICE on her part.  She CHOSE to violate the
> terms of her contract.

Accidents do happen. No one knows how she "got" pregnant other than
she did get pregnant. Besides which, it's irrelevant.

>
> >how does that suddenly negate all the
> > "Christian role model" behavior of hers and make her now worthy of
> > being fired >
>
> Because she was in volation of the terms of the contract that she
> willingly signed.

Nothing in the country specifically about not getting pregnant under
any circumstances whatsoever, so she violated nothing.

>
> > and banished to hell to live with Satan?
>
> No one's saying that she's going to Hell.  Christians offer help and
> support to single mothers - we just don't want them teaching out
> school children.

What about the single dads who teach your school children?

>
> Since you're so concerned about motherhood, where's your outrage when
> Hillary attacked cancer survivor and MS sufferer Ann Romney for daring
> to be a stay at home mom?

That discussion is way over your head because it involves context,
which you've consistently fail to understand. And there was no daring
her for being her a stay at home mom.

[David Hartung]

It means that I am not going to answer your question. You may make
whatever you wish from that.

[wy]

What are you afraid of? It's only a question. Can't defend your
stance? Don't really believe in what you believe in? Yeah, it'd be
hard to defend something you don't really believe in, especially when
you have no ready cut-and-paste answers for what you supposedly
believe is right. And you wonder why people see you as having a
severe credibility problem.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, wy wrote:
> A quarter of the babies born today are born out of
> wedlock

Say howdy to your mama under the porch...

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 1:27 PM, wy wrote:
> Did you just expel gas out of some backside orifice of yours?

Have you cut back on sniffing bicycle seats lately?

[wy]

Your mama never gave birth to you. They had to grow you in a test
tube to restrain your toxicity, which would've killed your mama.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 2:46 PM, wy wrote:
> And you wonder why people see you as having a
> severe credibility problem.

This from the repulsive, Jew-hating, canuck troll...

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 3:48 PM, wy wrote:
> On Apr 13, 6:45 pm, lsrlts<dd...@gnail.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, wy wrote:
>>
>>> A quarter of the babies born today are born out of
>>> wedlock
>>
>> Say howdy to your mama under the porch...
>
> Your mama

No, yours.

[Steve]

Simple fact: The school fired her as they had every right to do.
Since they were her employer, they were the ones who judged her and
they did.

[lsrlts]

On 4/13/2012 5:45 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:

> That would be a couple steps up in class from my ho mommy

Easily...

[trainguard]

But we are talking about people who call themselves Christians.

You wouldn't understand....

[Steve]

<chuckles> Barry Worthless actually believes he's qualified to
catechize Christian doctrine.

>You wouldn't understand....

Actually, I do.... Barry thinks that if he gives the appearance of
knowledge and authority, people my actually mistake him for being
knowledgeable and authoritative.

[Richard Steel]

> > > Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
> > > So there was this teacher at some Christian school in Texas who got
> > > pregnant -

> > An UNMARRIED teacher.

> Why does this matter?

Because she teaches at a Christian school, and signed a contract not
to do such things.

> > >  and, of course, this has to take place in Texas.

> > So what?

> Where the nuts come from.....

British inbreed insanity is the stuff of legend.

> "If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas!"

"I am proud to say that I have not one drop of English blood."
Frank Zappa

> > > Normally,
> > > that shouldn't be a problem, except that she was unmarried.

> > And she was working at a Christian School.

> Why is that important?

Because she signed a contract that she wouldn't do such things.

> > > So what
> > > did the school do?

> > They should have fired her.

> And how would that have demonstrated Christian principle?

It would have shown that the school do not find having children out of
wedlock acceptable.

> > >  Fire her.>

> > Good.

> Not a Christian, Richard?

Yes, I am. Fire her.

> > >   Apparently, she contravened the morals
> > > clause in her contract, which apparently is defined only as someone
> > > who must be "a Christian role model" in all its vagueness.

> > Nothing vague about it.  Getting knocked up without being married is
> > definitely not Christian Role Model behavior.

> How would you know?

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure,
for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral..
Hebrews 13:4

> You are as much a Christian as ... a
> conservative.....

Thank you.

> > She signed a contract - she did not live up to the terms of her
> > contract.  Not sure where there's a problem.

> > > So let me get this straight.  If she was a great teacher

> > We have no indication at all if she was a "great teacher".  We do know
> > that she didn't live up to the conditions of the contract she signed.

> In someone's 'opinion'....someone probably like you....

Nooooooooooo - it was written out very clearly in a contract the woman
signed.

> > >  and she had
> > > been at the school for years
>
> > Three years.
>
> > > and had exhibited all the "Christian role
> > > model" qualities that the school could be proud of,>

> > Which nobody claims.

> > >  but then she got
> > > pregnant while unmarried, >

> > "Got?"  No, it was a CHOICE on her part.  She CHOSE to violate the
> > terms of her contract.

> There but for the Grace of God, Richard.....

And you.

> > >how does that suddenly negate all the
> > > "Christian role model" behavior of hers and make her now worthy of
> > > being fired >
>

> > Because she was in violation of the terms of the contract that she

> > willingly signed.
>
> > > and banished to hell to live with Satan?

> > No one's saying that she's going to Hell.  Christians offer help and
> > support to single mothers - we just don't want them teaching out
> > school children.

> Why not?

Because to do so would send a message to children that it's ok to have
sex outside of marriage.

> What a horrible little person you are!

You're the one who writes death threats and torture porn, not me.

[Richard Steel]

> > > Religious fanaticism needs to be wiped off the face of this planet.
> > > So there was this teacher at some Christian school in Texas who got
> > > pregnant -

> > An UNMARRIED teacher.

> Irrelevant.

Not to the people who run the school, when they had her contract such
behavior would result in her firing.

> > >  and, of course, this has to take place in Texas.

> > So what?

> Probably the second stupidest state after Mississippi.  But you're too
> stupid to know that.

I'm sure Texas would be proud to have your contempt. I know that I
am.

> > > Normally,
> > > that shouldn't be a problem, except that she was unmarried.

> > And she was working at a Christian School.

> Irrelevant.

Not to the people who did the firing.

> > > So what
> > > did the school do?
>
> > They should have fired her.
>
> > >  Fire her.>
>
> > Good.

> But you'd let the guy who screwed her keep his, right?  It takes two
> to tango, stupid.

Was the father working for the school?

> > >   Apparently, she contravened the morals
> > > clause in her contract, which apparently is defined only as someone
> > > who must be "a Christian role model" in all its vagueness.

> > Nothing vague about it.  Getting knocked up without being married is
> > definitely not Christian Role Model behavior.

> Same thing for a single woman who got raped.

No, consensual sex is very different than rape. Oh, wait, you're a
Liberal - you support rape when it's done by someone you like.

> This seems to be a
> question no idiot right wingnut can answer without gagging on his own
> response: should the raped unmarried woman also be fired?

Where was this concern for rape victims when it came to Juanita
Broaddrick?

> > She signed a contract - she did not live up to the terms of her
> > contract.  Not sure where there's a problem.

> She's starting a family - the heart and soul of Christianity.  And
> they still punish her for it?

Yup.

> > > So let me get this straight.  If she was a great teacher

> > We have no indication at all if she was a "great teacher".

> That's why I said "if," stupid.

And I pointed out the qualifier because it's meaningless. She didn't
live up to the terms of her contract. She got fired. Your arguement
is the same as the great file clerk who couldn't get to work on time.
No matter how good she is at her job, she's still fired.

>  Besides, it's irrelevant if she was
> or wasn't.

And yet you bring it up.

> > We do know
> > that she didn't live up to the conditions of the contract she signed.

> Nothing in the contract says anything about not getting pregnant under
> any circumstances whatsoever.

No, it stated that teachers were to display "Christian Role Models"
ethics.

> > >  and she had
> > > been at the school for years
>
> > Three years.
>
> That's still yearS, stupid.

Yeah, three years.

>
>
>
> > > and had exhibited all the "Christian role
> > > model" qualities that the school could be proud of,>
>
> > Which nobody claims.
>
> She would've been fired long before this happened if she hadn't
> exhibited any Christian role model qualities.

Really? You have proof that the school regularly fires personal for
the slightest mistake? Please, feel free to link evidence of that
position right here-------------------------------->

> > >  but then she got
> > > pregnant while unmarried, >

> > "Got?"  No, it was a CHOICE on her part.  She CHOSE to violate the
> > terms of her contract.

> Accidents do happen.

It was an "accident" that she had sex? How's that work, exactly? Did
she slip and fall on a stray handy erect penis?

< No one knows how she "got" pregnant other than
> she did get pregnant.

We all know EXACTLY how she got pregant. She had sex when not
married.

> Besides which, it's irrelevant.

The private school considered a Minister. She signed a contract to be
a "Christian Role Model".

> > >how does that suddenly negate all the
> > > "Christian role model" behavior of hers and make her now worthy of
> > > being fired >

> > Because she was in violation of the terms of the contract that she

> > willingly signed.

> Nothing in the country specifically about not getting pregnant under
> any circumstances whatsoever, so she violated nothing.

Again, the contract demanded that conduct herself in a manner which
conforms with being a "Christian role model."

> > > and banished to hell to live with Satan?

> > No one's saying that she's going to Hell.  Christians offer help and
> > support to single mothers - we just don't want them teaching out
> > school children.

> What about the single dads who teach your school children?

A man who knocked up a woman outside of marriage would almost
certainly be equally unwelcome as a Minister/teacher.

> > Since you're so concerned about motherhood, where's your outrage when
> > Hillary attacked cancer survivor and MS sufferer Ann Romney for daring
> > to be a stay at home mom?

> That discussion is way over your head because it involves context,
> which you've consistently fail to understand.

So you don't have anything to say to defend your hypocrisy, huh?

>  And there was no daring
> her for being her a stay at home mom.

Read that sentence out loud, then re-write it so it makes sense.