> 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-...