• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Church fires unwed pregant employee

Yeah, because we know you don't expect folks to follow the rules of their employment. Any attempt by others to stick to their employment rules is just so cruel and heartless. :roll:

Let those among us who have never enjoyed a tall cold glass of horizontal refreshment cast the first stone.

Not that it's relevant to this church, but I do think it's interesting that Jim Baker in Jimmy Swaggart or still on television preaching. Without that much real protest from the Christian community
 
how do the verses you quote justify firing someone?

oh. they don't.

They do indeed. Not only are Christians capable of judging actions, but they are directed explicitly to expel the unrepentant from the group.

Now, neither you nor I know if this woman is repentant or not. Though if she's mad and trying to make a case for it, it's pretty good evidence that she' isn't. Regardless, the Church has a right and indeed a duty to make sure that the people it puts into positions of influence can stand credibly for it's values.

do you not see your own cognitive dissonance? ("not better than another" followed by "not in position to influence children")

Not at all. I'm not (at current) a problematic influence over children because A) I would recognize that my sexual activity prior to marriage was wrong and B) I wouldn't be a constant source of questions from the kids. Parents don't want their four year olds learning about this from someone who doesn't share their values - which is part of why they send them to a Church run daycare in the first place.
 
They do indeed. Not only are Christians capable of judging actions, but they are directed explicitly to expel the unrepentant from the group.

Now, neither you nor I know if this woman is repentant or not. Though if she's mad and trying to make a case for it, it's pretty good evidence that she' isn't. Regardless, the Church has a right and indeed a duty to make sure that the people it puts into positions of influence can stand credibly for it's values.



Not at all. I'm not (at current) a problematic influence over children because A) I would recognize that my sexual activity prior to marriage was wrong and B) I wouldn't be a constant source of questions from the kids. Parents don't want their four year olds learning about this from someone who doesn't share their values - which is part of why they send them to a Church run daycare in the first place.


but you just quoted verse that said that the "judgeR" is not "better than" the "judgee". if they are therefore equal, then

1) if the judgee is not capable to influence children
NEITHER IS
2) the judger
 
but you just quoted verse that said that the "judgeR" is not "better than" the "judgee".

:raises eyebrow: while I would certainly argue that we are all sinners, where did I quote that verse? The verses I quoted gave you A) Christians ability (and indeed, responsibility) to judge actions and B) Christians responsibility to expel the unrepentant.

if they are therefore equal, then

1) if the judgee is not capable to influence children
NEITHER IS
2) the judger

That is incorrect. Neither is better nor worse in our status as a sinner. All have sinned and fallen short. (and I think you are misusing the word "capable")

Which doesn't mean that the Church should not A) expel the unrepentant (as directed by Christ Himself) or B) exercise wisdom in who they choose to put into positions of influence. This woman seemingly did not agree with and refused to uphold the moral teachings of the Church, and if so then they were right to no longer allow her that position that she held.

Let us say, for example, that I was a reformed drug addict. That's problematic. You worry about the heavy temptations on those people. But as a penitent, sure, you bring them into the Church, you perform your due diligence by observing them over a period of time in a non-influential role to ensure that they are solid and truly reformed, and then you can expand their role. That's how the Church is supposed to operate.

Now let's say I am an unreformed drug addict. Should I be put in charge of children simply because we are both sinners?


No. Innocent as lambs, but as wise as serpents ;)
 
That's fine, their job though is to protect employees from discrimination, not to decide law when it comes to religion vs employee rights. That's what the courts are here to decide.

They have already ruled on this.

The church doesn't decide what a ministerial job is.
yes they do and the court gives them wide leeway in this regard.



Tabor vs EEOC is the case I've been referencing throughout. The case makes a distinction between ministerial and non ministerial positions.

To the church there is no difference. if you are in a teaching part of the church then you are in a ministerial position. it is no different than the worship leader.
yea and they threw that case out in a 9-0 for the church.

citing the same reason. the 1st amendment guarantees the church the right to pick it's ministers/teachers/janitors/whoever else they want.
 
That is incorrect. Neither is better nor worse in our status as a sinner. All have sinned and fallen short. (and I think you are misusing the word "capable")

Which doesn't mean that the Church should not A) expel the unrepentant (as directed by Christ Himself) or B) exercise wisdom in who they choose to put into positions of influence. This woman seemingly did not agree with and refused to uphold the moral teachings of the Church, and if so then they were right to no longer allow her that position that she held.

Let us say, for example, that I was a reformed drug addict. That's problematic. You worry about the heavy temptations on those people. But as a penitent, sure, you bring them into the Church, you perform your due diligence by observing them over a period of time in a non-influential role to ensure that they are solid and truly reformed, and then you can expand their role. That's how the Church is supposed to operate.

Now let's say I am an unreformed drug addict. Should I be put in charge of children simply because we are both sinners?


No. Innocent as lambs, but as wise as serpents ;)


Sorry, but nothing you posted (verse wise) justifies the position you are staking out.
 
They have already ruled on this.


yes they do and the court gives them wide leeway in this regard.





To the church there is no difference. if you are in a teaching part of the church then you are in a ministerial position. it is no different than the worship leader.
yea and they threw that case out in a 9-0 for the church.

citing the same reason. the 1st amendment guarantees the church the right to pick it's ministers/teachers/janitors/whoever else they want.

Bingo. You look at the bulletin of my home church under "Ministers" and it reads "All Confirmed Members".
 
Sorry, but nothing you posted (verse wise) justifies the position you are staking out.

It did so directly. You are engaging in a just-so argument because you did not understand the verse you cited, and certainly did not have the biblical context for it.

But I accept your inability to respond directly as your implicit acknowledgement of this. :) Have a good day.
 
In this case, the woman is a day care worker, a position that may, or may not be considered "ministerial". In my opinion, if one accepts employment of any kind at a non profit (church, mosque, temple, PETA, etc), you play by their rules, or you dont play there.

.

The bolded is my position exactly. I remember a case a few years ago, where a private school teacher was terminated for being pregnant out of wedlock, and iirc, there was a clause in her employment contract to the effect that she would follow certain guidelines regarding personal moral behaviors. I don't have any problem with that as long as it's a contractual agreement.
 
Just because the employer may try to classify her position as ministerial now does not mean that such a status cannot be legally challenged. For example, the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend recently tried and to use the ministerial exception as justification for firing a teacher. They lost because, as the judge aptly noted:

"The Diocese hasn’t shown that Mrs. Herx’s teaching qualifications or job responsibilities in any way compare to Ms. Perich’s situation. Nothing in the summary judgment record suggests that Mrs. Herx was a member of the clergy of the Catholic Church. Mrs. Herx has never led planning for a Mass, hasn’t been ordained by the Catholic Church, hasn’t held a title with the Catholic Church, has never had (and wasn’t required to have) any religious instruction or training to be a teacher at the school, has never held herself out as a priest or minister, and was considered by the principal to be a “lay teacher.” The religion teachers for the Diocese schools have different contracts than the non-religion teachers and are required to have religious education and training. For example, Cynthia Wolf, a religion teacher in the Diocese, has a Master’s Degree in Theology. Labeling Mrs. Herx a “minister” based on her attendance and participation in prayer and religious services with her students, which was done in a supervisory capacity, would greatly expand the scope of the ministerial exception and ultimately would qualify all of the Diocese’s teachers as ministers, a position rejected by the Hosanna-Tabor Court."

I read the whole thing. they screwed up the diocese should appeal the jury verdict to the SCOTUS and they will win.
they have already ruled on several of these cases I showed earlier.

they have all been thrown out and the church wins. it just hasn't gotten that far yet.
 
Bingo. You look at the bulletin of my home church under "Ministers" and it reads "All Confirmed Members".

that isn't to say that church isn't being stupid, however they are free to do this without legal implications.
 
Forgiveness =/= Retaining Someone Who Will Be Shaping Your Children.

Yep. Lots of caveats on forgiveness in that bible.
 
I read the whole thing. they screwed up the diocese should appeal the jury verdict to the SCOTUS and they will win.
they have already ruled on several of these cases I showed earlier. they have all been thrown out and the church wins. it just hasn't gotten that far yet.

I think SCOTUS would side with the teacher in this case particularly since there was no evidence that the Diocese regarded Mrs. Herx's position at the school as ministerial prior to the lawsuit and overwhelming evidence that it did not. This case exemplifies the abuse of the ministerial exception by religious employers.
 
Yep. Lots of caveats on forgiveness in that bible.

Well, there are two: 1. You have to repent and 2. there is one sin ("blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" - whatever that means. I have yet to see a fully satisfactory breakdown) that will not be forgiven, though, presumably, had you committed it, you wouldn't be fulfilling caveat #1, either.
 
I think SCOTUS would side with the teacher in this case particularly since there was no evidence that the Diocese regarded Mrs. Herx's position at the school as ministerial prior to the lawsuit and overwhelming evidence that it did not. This case exemplifies the abuse of the ministerial exception by religious employers.

a Mormon church fired a janitor for not being part of the Mormon church. he sued and he lost.
in order to work for any church you have to sign a statement that you will abide by the church doctrine.

in this case she got pregnant outside of marriage, and she failed to get married in a timely fashion if she was going to.
she teaches pre-school or daycare.

when the judicial system starts telling church who they can and can't hire and fire they start to violate the 1st amendment.
she violated the church's morality clause more than likely. she can be terminated.

there is already precedent set on this. if the judges follow the past the church wins.

in Mrs. Herx case it was thrown out over a disability. also the judge screwed up. she violated an firm belief of the church she was teaching for.
almost all catholic schools have some sort of religious note on them. and teachers sign agreements that they will uphold the tenants of the church in most cases.
 
Forgiveness =/= Retaining Someone Who Will Be Shaping Your Children.

This will serve as an example to these children of how compassionate the church is toward the unfortunate among us. They will learn that good Christians often say one thing and do another.
 
This will serve as an example to these children of how compassionate the church is toward the unfortunate among us. They will learn that good Christians often say one thing and do another.

That is detached from reality. "Compassion" =/= "Forgiveness" which also =/= "allowing to represent the church or remain in a position of influence over children". The Bible teaches us to act as the Church seems to have done.

You people are confusing loving someone with enabling them.
 
Yep. Lots of caveats on forgiveness in that bible.

There are. Forgiveness doesn't imply you can keep on with the behavior you're asking forgiveness for.
 
That is detached from reality. "Compassion" =/= "Forgiveness" which also =/= "allowing to represent the church or remain in a position of influence over children". The Bible teaches us to act as the Church seems to have done.

You people are confusing loving someone with enabling them.

I was a member of the church for decades. I can do without any BS from message board preachers. Some of the most right-wing nutjobs I have encountered is in the church. Like I said, they preach one thing and do another.
 
I was a member of the church for decades. I can do without any BS from message board preachers. Some of the most right-wing nutjobs I have encountered is in the church. Like I said, they preach one thing and do another.

:shrug: You'll meet left wing nutjobs in churches too, though fewer. I fail to see how anything you posted is a response?
 
This will serve as an example to these children of how compassionate the church is toward the unfortunate among us. They will learn that good Christians often say one thing and do another.

No it won't, and there is absolutely no indication that this woman is "unfortunate". With an unmarried and pregnant teacher that last is precisely what they will be taught.
 
I was a member of the church for decades. I can do without any BS from message board preachers. Some of the most right-wing nutjobs I have encountered is in the church. Like I said, they preach one thing and do another.

Remove the beam from your own eye, then we'll talk.
 
when the judicial system starts telling church who they can and can't hire and fire they start to violate the 1st amendment.
she violated the church's morality clause more than likely. she can be terminated. there is already precedent set on this. if the judges follow the past the church wins. in Mrs. Herx case it was thrown out over a disability. also the judge screwed up. she violated an firm belief of the church she was teaching for.
almost all catholic schools have some sort of religious note on them. and teachers sign agreements that they will uphold the tenants of the church in most cases.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that religious employers have broad authority to define their employees as ministers but it also very clearly noted that it is not absolute. The judge in the Herx case correctly interpreted and applied the Hossanna-Tabor decision. A religious employer cannot reclassify a former employee as a minister as a defense. An employee isn't a minister for the purposes of the ministerial exception just because a religious employer says so; that classification must be evaluated and tested on a case-by-case basis when used as a defense for discriminatory hiring/firing practices.
 
Last edited:
I think SCOTUS would side with the teacher in this case particularly since there was no evidence that the Diocese regarded Mrs. Herx's position at the school as ministerial prior to the lawsuit and overwhelming evidence that it did not. This case exemplifies the abuse of the ministerial exception by religious employers.

I would not be so sure.

Even the liberal justices in the Mount Tabor Lutheran vs EEOC (also a fired secular subject teacher with very nominal religous duties) stated that the term "minister" is to be broady defined- though not absolute. They then proceeded to rule 9-0 against the teacher.

At the end of the day, I think even the progressive justices of SCOTUS is going to err on the side of the First Amendment for two reasons:

- Practical (Rule against us? OK, in the future every employee at this church or mosque will have a religous function of some sort)
- Philosophical reasons (churches, temples, etc, must be free to select their own represenatives for the First to have real meaning).
 
Your characterization of reality is a bit skewed. She wasn't just thrown out one day. She KNEW the rules, before she got pregnant. She KNEW a decision to go it alone and not get married would result in losing her job. This was a situation entirely of her own making.



Concur, but OTOH...


Getting married to the babydaddy isn't necessarily always the right thing to do. I am very traditional and it is hard for me to admit that... but if the babydaddy is a meth-head couch potato living off disability in his parent's garage, she would do better to run away screaming than marry him... and maybe the church ought to exercise a smidge more compassion and a smidge less judgmentalism in such a case. JM0.02
 
Back
Top Bottom