Fired for Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/former-coach-fired-christian-school-wedlock-pregnancy-145601399.html)
This kind of thing saddens me. While I do support the rights of the private school, sometimes we (and I mean Christians with that 'we') put the better Christian thing to do below "the law" of God. This totally trashes the account, if you'll indulge me, of Christ and the prostitute brought before him. According to the law, stoning was the correct sentence, but according to the Law Giver, mercy was given.
I don't think that she should have been fired for something like being pregnant without being married. However, if she read the contract, she should have known that she could be fired for that. So really, it seems like everybody was in the wrong.
Quote from: Budhorse4 on April 12, 2012, 04:58:41 PM
I don't think that she should have been fired for something like being pregnant without being married. However, if she read the contract, she should have known that she could be fired for that. So really, it seems like everybody was in the wrong.
Mistakes happen and I'm sure she knew what the "rules" were if it was clearly worded in her contract. However I'd agree, but then which is more of a "no-no"... normal pregnancy or an abortion?
AD, I saw that too.
Obviously, as a non Christian, I think it's ridiculous. However, I also agree that private schools should be allowed to have rules like that, and that she presumably knew the rules when she got hired on.
On the other hand, I agree with you about the problem with Christians not acting very Christ-like. My upbringing was such that people paid a lot of lip service to the idea that we are all sinners, we all fall short, but through Jesus we can all be forgiven, that you don't have to be perfect, in fact you can't be perfect, but that's okay because Jesus already paid for our sins. The idea of pushing someone away because she is a sinner seems very contrary to the ideology of Christianity. But it also doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 05:14:47 PM
AD, I saw that too.
Obviously, as a non Christian, I think it's ridiculous. However, I also agree that private schools should be allowed to have rules like that, and that she presumably knew the rules when she got hired on.
On the other hand, I agree with you about the problem with Christians not acting very Christ-like. My upbringing was such that people paid a lot of lip service to the idea that we are all sinners, we all fall short, but through Jesus we can all be forgiven, that you don't have to be perfect, in fact you can't be perfect, but that's okay because Jesus already paid for our sins. The idea of pushing someone away because she is a sinner seems very contrary to the ideology of Christianity. But it also doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
As a Christian, I think it's ridiculous. Neither does it surprise me.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:27:58 PM
Fired for Out-of-Wedlock Pregnancy (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/former-coach-fired-christian-school-wedlock-pregnancy-145601399.html)
This kind of thing saddens me. While I do support the rights of the private school, sometimes we (and I mean Christians with that 'we') put the better Christian thing to do below "the law" of God. This totally trashes the account, if you'll indulge me, of Christ and the prostitute brought before him. According to the law, stoning was the correct sentence, but according to the Law Giver, mercy was given.
This is why, for all of our grumbling, most of us consider you one of the "good" Christians. :)
And I agree with the people who've said that this could backfire and actually encourage more women to have abortions (which is not what the "family values" religious folk want). The school is within their right to enforce their contract, but I really wonder how much they've thought through the implications of such a policy. I'd be interested in seeing the exact wording of this "morality" clause.
What I would like to know is where the father is. If they were in a committed relationship and this happened I would feel that there would be no problem with having a child. But if this was just an accident baby with a random man, then I can see how she would be setting an example for the kids.
I'd like to have a look at that contract, and what it specifically states. Not one teacher in that school is a paragon of virtue, I can guarantee. Does the school mete out the same punishment for the ones who fail to honor the Sabbath, or express envy over a neighbour's new acquisition? I fear that if the contract expressly forbids getting knocked up she's out of luck . . . but I don't see the school's actions as very 'Christian' at all. Christ accepted sinners into his group, he did not expel them, because he knew full well there was not one human who could claim exception to 'being a sinner'.
I don't really give a shit whether it was an accident, planned, whether the teacher was in a committed relationship or just had some fun one night . . . I don't think that's anyone's business but hers. But of course, I would never sign a work contract that made my vagina someone else's business.
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
I'd like to have a look at that contract, and what it specifically states. Not one teacher in that school is a paragon of virtue, I can guarantee. Does the school mete out the same punishment for the ones who fail to honor the Sabbath, or express envy over a neighbour's new acquisition? I fear that if the contract expressly forbids getting knocked up she's out of luck . . . but I don't see the school's actions as very 'Christian' at all. Christ accepted sinners into his group, he did not expel them, because he knew full well there was not one human who could claim exception to 'being a sinner'.
I don't really give a shit whether it was an accident, planned, whether the teacher was in a committed relationship or just had some fun one night . . . I don't think that's anyone's business but hers. But of course, I would never sign a work contract that made my vagina someone else's business.
As an aside, I wonder what would happen if a male teacher knocked up a woman - would he see the same punishment? Or would he receive a pass because his 'sin' is less apparent?
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
I'd like to have a look at that contract, and what it specifically states. Not one teacher in that school is a paragon of virtue, I can guarantee. Does the school mete out the same punishment for the ones who fail to honor the Sabbath, or express envy over a neighbour's new acquisition? I fear that if the contract expressly forbids getting knocked up she's out of luck . . . but I don't see the school's actions as very 'Christian' at all. Christ accepted sinners into his group, he did not expel them, because he knew full well there was not one human who could claim exception to 'being a sinner'.
I don't really give a shit whether it was an accident, planned, whether the teacher was in a committed relationship or just had some fun one night . . . I don't think that's anyone's business but hers. But of course, I would never sign a work contract that made my vagina someone else's business.
As an aside, I wonder what would happen if a male teacher knocked up a woman - would he see the same punishment? Or would he receive a pass because his 'sin' is less apparent?
The same thought crossed my mind. >:(
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 12, 2012, 05:22:39 PM
This is why, for all of our grumbling, most of us consider you one of the "good" Christians. :)
Certainly I'm not nearly as good as some of you. As I've mentioned, I know a few Atheists that are better "Christians" than I am. Thx. though. :)
Quote from: DeterminedJulietI'd be interested in seeing the exactly wording of this "morality" clause.
Me too...
Quote from: Budhorse4 on April 12, 2012, 04:58:41 PM
I don't think that she should have been fired for something like being pregnant without being married. However, if she read the contract, she should have known that she could be fired for that. So really, it seems like everybody was in the wrong.
It ought to be illegal, to draft up an employment contract containing that clause.
This could be seen as discrimination against women, against atheists.
In my opinion it is a human rights violation.
People have the right to have children out of wedlock. Some people choose to be solo parents, some people simply choose to not participate in the tradition of marriage.
Quote from: Stevil on April 12, 2012, 06:23:36 PM
Quote from: Budhorse4 on April 12, 2012, 04:58:41 PM
I don't think that she should have been fired for something like being pregnant without being married. However, if she read the contract, she should have known that she could be fired for that. So really, it seems like everybody was in the wrong.
It ought to be illegal, to draft up an employment contract containing that clause.
This could be seen as discrimination against women, against atheists.
In my opinion it is a human rights violation.
People have the right to have children out of wedlock. Some people choose to be solo parents, some people simply choose to not participate in the tradition of marriage.
Under the "private" laws, it's not illegal. My point is that while it is lawful, the institution promoting Chrisitianity should think better about their position/decision on matters like this. If this person had thumbed their nose and gotten pregnant IN ORDER TO MAKE WAVES, then I would have a different opinion.
Quote from: Tank on April 12, 2012, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
I'd like to have a look at that contract, and what it specifically states. Not one teacher in that school is a paragon of virtue, I can guarantee. Does the school mete out the same punishment for the ones who fail to honor the Sabbath, or express envy over a neighbour's new acquisition? I fear that if the contract expressly forbids getting knocked up she's out of luck . . . but I don't see the school's actions as very 'Christian' at all. Christ accepted sinners into his group, he did not expel them, because he knew full well there was not one human who could claim exception to 'being a sinner'.
I don't really give a shit whether it was an accident, planned, whether the teacher was in a committed relationship or just had some fun one night . . . I don't think that's anyone's business but hers. But of course, I would never sign a work contract that made my vagina someone else's business.
As an aside, I wonder what would happen if a male teacher knocked up a woman - would he see the same punishment? Or would he receive a pass because his 'sin' is less apparent?
The same thought crossed my mind. >:(
Yeah, same.
But I've pretty much given up on trying to argue against all of the misogyny inherent in a lot of organized religion. It's like banging your head against a wall. And it's just so ingrained in Abrahamic religions, I don't even know what they'd look like without it. My feelings are, generally, to let them do whatever they're going to do so long as they keep it in the private sphere and the people who are subjected to the thinking are voluntarily practicing in the religious practices - which I think, in this case, the woman was.
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 12, 2012, 07:37:25 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 12, 2012, 05:39:08 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:33:49 PM
Quote from: Dobermonster on April 12, 2012, 05:30:53 PM
I'd like to have a look at that contract, and what it specifically states. Not one teacher in that school is a paragon of virtue, I can guarantee. Does the school mete out the same punishment for the ones who fail to honor the Sabbath, or express envy over a neighbour's new acquisition? I fear that if the contract expressly forbids getting knocked up she's out of luck . . . but I don't see the school's actions as very 'Christian' at all. Christ accepted sinners into his group, he did not expel them, because he knew full well there was not one human who could claim exception to 'being a sinner'.
I don't really give a shit whether it was an accident, planned, whether the teacher was in a committed relationship or just had some fun one night . . . I don't think that's anyone's business but hers. But of course, I would never sign a work contract that made my vagina someone else's business.
As an aside, I wonder what would happen if a male teacher knocked up a woman - would he see the same punishment? Or would he receive a pass because his 'sin' is less apparent?
The same thought crossed my mind. >:(
Yeah, same.
But I've pretty much given up on trying to argue against all of the misogyny inherent in a lot of organized religion. It's like banging your head against a wall. And it's just so ingrained in Abrahamic religions, I don't even know what they'd look like without it. My feelings are, generally, to let them do whatever they're going to do so long as they keep it in the private sphere and the people who are subjected to the thinking are voluntarily practicing in the religious practices - which I think, in this case, the woman was.
Agreed.
Oh geez, this is disgustingly sexist, but why am i not surprised?
Once again, a human right is trampled on by religious hypocrits.
Apparently female teachers use to have to hide their pregnancy even if they were married. I had a biology teacher in middle school who told us stories about how horrible her pregnancy was and how she had to try to hide it while teaching. I was in like the 5th or 6th grade at the time...whatever grade they start sex ed (I know it was lower than 8th grade). So, that was a teacher who is probably in her 60s now as I remember her looking about the same age as my parents (though since everyone looks old to kids, she could be younger). This was in Oklahoma at a private school...not a religious one.
Anyway...I agree that it is horrible for the holier than thou groups to kick a pregnant woman to the curb just because she is not married...it would be better to make sure she had a job to provide for the coming baby.
Crap Whitney, i just realized she now has no job, with a baby on the way. *fumes*
I cannot believe this is legal. It really is mind boggling.
maybe unwed mothers will be the next protected group.
At least there are gov programs she can use to pay for the pregnancy and baby supplies.....ironic considering that most who are against unwed mothers and against abortions also are against gov care for those mothers.
I just cant fathom what harm she's doing. Let her be! >___<
The world isn't so damn black/white. Not to mention, how does being married make a damn difference in raising a child?
Ugh, sorry. Lol! I forgot i am preaching to their choir. XD you guys get my feelings of anger.
I know that here in Brazil employers are obligated to pay maternity leave for new mothers. I don't know if that's the case in the US...correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming it is.
When my mother was hiring for a business she was opening, employees told her that some commercial jobs aren't even open to women in their fertile age because they don't want to pay maternity leaves. Just saying there could be other hidden reasons why people do things, and use religion as a convenient excuse.
Again, it depends on how the contract is worded I guess. Though it is morally questionable if she signed it, she consented. I do hope this story does turn out to be scandalous though, to bring it into focus.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2012, 12:25:23 PM
I know that here in Brazil employers are obligated to pay maternity leave for new mothers. I don't know if that's the case in the US...correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming it is.
When my mother was hiring for a business she was opening, employees told her that some commercial jobs aren't even open to women in their fertile age because they don't want to pay maternity leaves. Just saying there could be other hidden reasons why people do things, and use religion as a convenient excuse.
Again, it depends on how the contract is worded I guess. Though it is morally questionable if she signed it, she consented. I do hope this story does turn out to be scandalous though, to bring it into focus.
There's already so many discriminations against women with the wage gap. Jobs shouldnt assume every woman is going to get pregnant. Not to mention, there is Paternity leave as well, so all the "blame" shouldnt just be on the woman!!
Some women dont want kids, some cant have kids, some wont. How is a woman's vagina equal to how well she can do her job? Gundam.. This angers me.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 13, 2012, 05:35:17 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2012, 12:25:23 PM
I know that here in Brazil employers are obligated to pay maternity leave for new mothers. I don't know if that's the case in the US...correct me if I'm wrong but I'm assuming it is.
When my mother was hiring for a business she was opening, employees told her that some commercial jobs aren't even open to women in their fertile age because they don't want to pay maternity leaves. Just saying there could be other hidden reasons why people do things, and use religion as a convenient excuse.
Again, it depends on how the contract is worded I guess. Though it is morally questionable if she signed it, she consented. I do hope this story does turn out to be scandalous though, to bring it into focus.
There's already so many discriminations against women with the wage gap. Jobs shouldnt assume every woman is going to get pregnant. Not to mention, there is Paternity leave as well, so all the "blame" shouldnt just be on the woman!!
Some women dont want kids, some cant have kids, some wont. How is a woman's vagina equal to how well she can do her job? Gundam.. This angers me.
I'm not saying that it's a common occurance (definitely not as visible as the differences in wages), mostly it's what my mother's employees would tell us. They were simpler people too, and were usually applying for small businesses who apparently didn't want to pay a few month's salary without the person working there, especially since taxes are absurdly high. Just a cold and rational business decision.
I'm actually really curious to know what was in that clause which justified her getting fired over her pregnancy and if it was really more morality-police driven or business. ??? I'm skeptical that it was simply a moral clause, but then again so much absurdity happens in this world..
I sometimes wonder how different groups of Christians can outwardly derive their morals from the same book and ideology with such completely different results. You have this group, with their ridiculous contract, and you have another that runs a battered women's shelter that doesn't discriminate based on sexual preference, sex, income, or geographical location. If you're being battered by your spouse, that's all they need to know to help.
They all seem to derive their reasoning from the same source material though and it kind of baffles me.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2012, 07:00:37 PM
I'm not saying that it's a common occurance (definitely not as visible as the differences in wages), mostly it's what my mother's employees would tell us. They were simpler people too, and were usually applying for small businesses who apparently didn't want to pay a few month's salary without the person working there, especially since taxes are absurdly high. Just a cold and rational business decision.
I'm actually really curious to know what was in that clause which justified her getting fired over her pregnancy and if it was really more morality-police driven or business. ??? I'm skeptical that it was simply a moral clause, but then again so much absurdity happens in this world..
In the U.S. I don't think they are required to pay women for maternity leave, but most good businesses do. I believe they simply need to give you a certain amount of time off to give birth and recover. So I don't think it was finically motivated, unless there is a state law in Texas that requires paid leave, which I doubt.
It amazes me that (some) Christians think that what the school is doing is the moral thing to protect their children. To me, religion completely aside, a school that fires a woman for getting pregnant out of wedlock is setting the example for their children that it's acceptable to be hateful, judgmental, unforgiving, and discriminatory, as well as that it's perfectly acceptable to leave a pregnant woman without an income or healthcare. Like the very opposite of moral to me.
Quote from: The Ali on April 14, 2012, 01:23:50 AM
It amazes me that (some) Christians think that what the school is doing is the moral thing to protect their children. To me, religion completely aside, a school that fires a woman for getting pregnant out of wedlock is setting the example for their children that it's acceptable to be hateful, judgmental, unforgiving, and discriminatory, as well as that it's perfectly acceptable to leave a pregnant woman without an income or healthcare. Like the very opposite of moral to me.
It's sort of weird, but this kind of morality is all about the optics. An un-wed pregnant woman standing in front of kids everyday
looks bad to them. So it's immoral. If she's out of a job, they don't care because she becomes invisible and the moral dilemma, in their mind, evaporates (and it is, after all, so easy to blame her for this situation).
People who take these kind stances really feel that if they allow an issue to be visible, then they are "condoning" it. It reminds me of a safe-injection site debate that's raging in Ottawa right now. A lot of people are crying "not in my city" because the thought of giving drug addicts a safe place is paramount to "condoning" their behaviour. Personally, I think it's because they want to try and keep drug abuse as invisible as possible and they don't give a rat's ass about actually helping the people.
Quote from: Ali on April 14, 2012, 01:23:50 AM
It amazes me that (some) Christians think that what the school is doing is the moral thing to protect their children. To me, religion completely aside, a school that fires a woman for getting pregnant out of wedlock is setting the example for their children that it's acceptable to be hateful, judgmental, unforgiving, and discriminatory, as well as that it's perfectly acceptable to leave a pregnant woman without an income or healthcare. Like the very opposite of moral to me.
Exactly the reason children should be educated and taught that religion is a myth.