Should they have fired her?

[brianb]

This story is a couple of weeks old but I don't think that matters - it's still important.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/04/12/christian-school-fires-teacher-for-not-getting-married-quickly-enough/

Do you think they should have fired her? I know you're thinking that they had rule she should have followed but do you think that rule is fair?

Personal opinion: I think they are and I think she should have been fired. She is a responsible adult and she should have known better. Whether she's a Christian or not she should have known that what she did was against the school's policy.  We can assume also that she is a Christian but that may not be the case - there are many false professions of faith but that's another matter - back to the main issue.

She also said that she had to post-pone the wedding. I know a guy who had to do that but knowing his integrity he didn't do anything that would possibly lead to his now wife becoming pregnant out of wedlock. This woman as well as the man she's engaged to seem to lack integrity.

 

[T-Bone]

They should have fired her the moment she was either found to be living in sin or found to be with child.

 

[Ransom]

Nothing like a good ol' disingenuous headline:

Christian School Fires Teacher for Not Getting Married Quickly Enough

Makes about as much logical sense as:

"Police Arrest Shoplifter for Not Returning to Pay for Stolen Goods Soon Enough After Fleeing Store"

She wasn't fired for being pregnant (or for not getting married soon enough); she was fired for a sex act that was outside the recognized boundaries of Christian sexual ethics - of which pregnancy was prima facie evidence.

The "Friendly Atheist's" commenters are about as clueless on this as the blogger.

 

[brianb]

I hadn't read the whole story before I posted it but this story unfortunately isn't over. She wants to sue the school. Now if I was just going strictly by the New Testament wouldn't she be sinning again by suing another Christian if she is a Christian. Still makes me wonder if she just got this job because it was convenient or she couldn't get a job any where else. To me she's a bad example. Part of Christian school teaching is morality and one thing I know about young people is they learn mostly by example. Even a five year old (ok maybe not all five year olds) would know she was pregnant and if they know she's not married and have been taught Judeo-Christian values they'd know something was wrong.

 

[brianb]

Nothing like a good ol' disingenuous headline:

Christian School Fires Teacher for Not Getting Married Quickly Enough

Makes about as much logical sense as:

"Police Arrest Shoplifter for Not Returning to Pay for Stolen Goods Soon Enough After Fleeing Store"

She wasn't fired for being pregnant (or for not getting married soon enough); she was fired for a sex act that was outside the recognized boundaries of Christian sexual ethics - of which pregnancy was prima facie evidence.

The "Friendly Atheist's" commenters are about as clueless on this as the blogger.

Maybe one of the reason they are clueless is that professing Christians in general are relativistic in their thinking - a lot of them believe that sex out of wedlock is ok - this could be do to a lack of Bible knowledge on the matter or bad Bible teaching from false teachers for example who interpret fornication in a very literalistic way like only people who hook up with prostitutes commit fornication.

 

[truthdetector]

I didn't read the article.  However, pregnancy generally cannot be a reason to fire someone without possibly losing in litigation.  The ministry should terminate her for "sex outside of marriage" not pregnancy.  At least that was what I was taught in some legal course I took in college.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not running the school. They can do what they want, subject to the laws of the land of course. Did they violate them? I don't know, the courts will decide that.

But if I were running the school? I probably would write the rules differently.

 

[Ransom]

The ministry should terminate her for "sex outside of marriage" not pregnancy.

In all likelihood, her contract had some sort of "morality clause" in it that was violated by fornication.

 

[Gina B]

Of course. Part of teaching at a Christian school is living what you teach. She signed a contract which, if I read other news stories correctly, contained an agreement to live by Christian standards, which include not having sex outside of marriage.

That is not an example of showing you are capable of teaching children in a Christian school. Not that one has to be perfect, but I have to wonder if more leniency would have been shown if she would have been humble about it, admitted her mistake, and realized she messed up.

Instead, she only adds to the concept that she is a poor choice to put in front of children to teach, because instead of doing so, she is suing. Further evidence that she is not repentant.

No, I wouldn't want her teaching my kids in a Christian school. I'd be fine with it if she showed remorse and the school let her back in under the condition that she apologize to the children for being a bad example and used it as a teachable moment, which would have been ideal all around, but the school still should have the right to say no to that...even if I think they would have been doing a good thing by making that an option. However, it's gone beyond that now and she has, unfortunately, proven the school right in their decision by her subsequent actions.

Now a public school is another story...not only are a number of teachers poor examples of proper living, the school has a nursery for the kids of the students. Is that good? I don't know, I guess it helps them continue their education, but there's plenty of complaints from students that they shouldn't have to be quiet during their lunch break because it's nap time for the babies, and students come in late to class and disrupt what's going on because they were nursing their baby or whatever. They see the nursery and know that if they get pregnant, they have help and support and can continue a normal life, which means that in their minds, there are really no natural consequences to making poor choices. They'll get bailed out at everyone else's expense and not learn their lesson. I've only seen one guy go in there, the rest of the baby daddy's have ditched and are now walking past the nursery holding hands with their newest fling while the baby mamma spends her school break with the kiddo.

So a teacher in a Christian school, where this is discouraged, is the one setting the bad example and people question the consequences? I find that pretty crazy. I see the results of kids not having good examples. A Christian school should be a place where people have the right to insist that the teachers set a good example in this area and take responsibility if they mess up.

 

[Reformed Guy]

I'm not running the school. They can do what they want, subject to the laws of the land of course. Did they violate them? I don't know, the courts will decide that.

But if I were running the school? I probably would write the rules differently.

Why not just re-write them to wink not only at fornication, but to condone a few other works of the flesh, including adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings?-- all of which that "shall not inherit the kingdom" part we can treat as empty chatter.

I mean, if we're going to give a pass to our own pet sins, to be nice we've got to give the serial murderer a pass at his.

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not running the school. They can do what they want, subject to the laws of the land of course. Did they violate them? I don't know, the courts will decide that.

But if I were running the school? I probably would write the rules differently.

Why not just re-write them to wink not only at fornication, but to condone a few other works of the flesh, including adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings?-- all of which that "shall not inherit the kingdom" part we can treat as empty chatter.

I mean, if we're going to give a pass to our own pet sins, to be nice we've got to give the serial murderer a pass at his.

This is a really snarky and contentious reply to a very mild post. Not exactly showing the fruit of the spirit there yourself, are you, bro? My patience with this kind of stuff is limited, and there's plenty of room on my ignore list.

 

[OZZY]

I'm not running the school. They can do what they want, subject to the laws of the land of course. Did they violate them? I don't know, the courts will decide that.

But if I were running the school? I probably would write the rules differently.

Why not just re-write them to wink not only at fornication, but to condone a few other works of the flesh, including adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings?-- all of which that "shall not inherit the kingdom" part we can treat as empty chatter.

I mean, if we're going to give a pass to our own pet sins, to be nice we've got to give the serial murderer a pass at his.

This is a really snarky and contentious reply to a very mild post. Not exactly showing the fruit of the spirit there yourself, are you, bro? My patience with this kind of stuff is limited, and there's plenty of room on my ignore list.

So if some one disagrees with you they are not showing fruits of Spirit? I guess if he called Homosexuality an alternate life style and not SIN he would be full of the Fruits of the Spirit

 

[Izdaari]

I'm not running the school. They can do what they want, subject to the laws of the land of course. Did they violate them? I don't know, the courts will decide that.

But if I were running the school? I probably would write the rules differently.

Why not just re-write them to wink not only at fornication, but to condone a few other works of the flesh, including adultery, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,  envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings?-- all of which that "shall not inherit the kingdom" part we can treat as empty chatter.

I mean, if we're going to give a pass to our own pet sins, to be nice we've got to give the serial murderer a pass at his.

This is a really snarky and contentious reply to a very mild post. Not exactly showing the fruit of the spirit there yourself, are you, bro? My patience with this kind of stuff is limited, and there's plenty of room on my ignore list.

So if some one disagrees with you they are not showing fruits of Spirit? I guess if he called Homosexuality an alternate life style and not SIN he would be full of the Fruits of the Spirit

I'm not taking issue with the fact that he disagrees with me. I expect and welcome disagreement... but I expect it in a friendly way, like friends talking over coffee. I'm taking issue with his harsh and argumentative tone. I don't discuss anything with people who seem to want to be enemies.

But I have noticed that some here and on the old FFF are tone deaf... and some may just have very different expectations than mine on how forum conversations should be conducted. I do friendly exchanges of views, I do not do gloves-off debate. If someone insists on the latter, I avoid interacting with that person. I don't necessarily put them on ignore (my list is very short), but I stop responding to their posts.

 

[Agent P]

Now a pubic school is another story...

Hey Beavis, she said "pubic"...huh huh...

 

[Gina B]

Now a pubic school is another story...

Hey Beavis, she said "pubic"...huh huh...

ACK! Fixed it. ROFL

If you think that's bad, I used to attend Chardon High, where students constantly removed the C from the entrance sign and our principal one year was Mr. Bates, who of course was immediately branded "Master" instead of "Mister." It was an interesting year in the world of off color jokes!

 

[Agent P]

Now a pubic school is another story...

Hey Beavis, she said "pubic"...huh huh...

ACK! Fixed it. ROFL

If you think that's bad, I used to attend Chardon High, where students constantly removed the C from the entrance sign and our principal one year was Mr. Bates, who of course was immediately branded "Master" instead of "Mister." It was an interesting year in the world of off color jokes!

Even worse, the other day one of the schools where I work suspended a seventh-grade girl for (ahem) treating some of her
male classmates to oral sex in the middle of art class.  Other students kept the substitute teacher distracted while this was going on, but it still got caught.

And to think I'm leaving all this behind to attend seminary next year...

 

[bruinboy]

I find it interesting that this school holds it teachers to a higher moral standard than the average IFB screeeecher.  Depending on who you are, you can do the secretary for years, lie about and still get the mind-numbed-robot church members to wear 100% Hyles buttons.  Or, all one has to do is move to Florida and get a stupid managawd to hire you to be a yewt director.  I am sure that is a great example to the yewts, they know what he did, and he looked pregnant too.  Got to love it.

 

[brianb]

In hindsight they could have had a policy that only allowed married women as teachers but that would be discrimination against unmarried women. It would have prevented this from happening however.