• 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

Indeed, letting people and the unborn suffer is a form of love. This is like the Church of Ray Rice. Hahah
Abandoning principles because someone chose to make poor decisions helps how?
 
Abandoning principles because someone chose to make poor decisions helps how?

Throwing them out helps how? I'd say they would have to uphold their principles in order to love and forgive her, keeping her gainfully employed so that she can provide for her child; since we're all about the children, yeah?
 
My opinion depends on the nature of the day care center. If it is operated separately from the church, gets any government funding, and/or does not include any religious practices or teachings as part of its operation they should not be allowed to fire her.
 
Last edited:
Didn't they actually rule on that case for the woman who was employed at the Catholic School? If this is the case - then I don't see what's wrong [legally speaking] with what they did, here.

Am I wrong on that ruling?

I think suits were recently filed after two catholic ones- a same sex marriage termination and a pregnant teacher termination. One party (same sex marriage I believe ) accepted a settlement and dropped the suit. The other one was accepted by a court in Indiana (?).

As for the legality of the terminations, I agree with you that they are legal. The Indiana plaintiff, however, appears to be contending that she was not a minister, and thus has protections under the EEOC.
 
Yeah, for as much as they'll cry to think about the children, they sure didn't here. But I still say it's their call.

They are just being good republicans. Remember, life begins at conception but ends at birth.
 
Someone doesn't get that accountability is a form of love. Ikari, you really have no concept of what the Church did, you just see "religious institution did..." and you find a way to hammer on them. You attempt to call them hypocrites, which is your implication. It's really dishonest on your part frankly. You can forgive, while holding someone accountable. You can love, while holding someone accountable, and you can be understanding while holding someone accountable. That's the part of LOVE that eludes you.

It's not the church's job to punish or hold accountable. They are supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner.

It's up to God to judge and hold accountable.

Kinda like some part of your basic Sunday School eluded you.
 
Throwing them out helps how? I'd say they would have to uphold their principles in order to love and forgive her, keeping her gainfully employed so that she can provide for her child; since we're all about the children, yeah?

Yup, live life by the Golden Rule and leave the judgement up to God.
 
Throwing them out helps how? I'd say they would have to uphold their principles in order to love and forgive her, keeping her gainfully employed so that she can provide for her child; since we're all about the children, yeah?

So ignore the failure to keep up her end of the bargain and retain an employee who doesnt show good moral character.... instead of firing her and making room for someone who is.... wow you are warped.
 
So ignore the failure to keep up her end of the bargain and retain an employee who doesnt show good moral character.... instead of firing her and making room for someone who is.... wow you are warped.

Am I? So ignore the child and the life of the woman, huck her on the street so that you can employee someone more "Christ like"? That's not warped? Wasn't Jesus running around teaching people to love and forgive? Washing prostitute's feet? Telling people not to cast the first stone? Feeding the hungry? But I'm sure he would just kick an unwed pregnant mom to the curb. :roll:
 
It's not the church's job to punish or hold accountable. They are supposed to hate the sin, love the sinner.

It's up to God to judge and hold accountable.

Kinda like some part of your basic Sunday School eluded you.

Accountability is not judgement.
 
Am I? So ignore the child and the life of the woman, huck her on the street so that you can employee someone more "Christ like"? That's not warped? Wasn't Jesus running around teaching people to love and forgive? Washing prostitute's feet? Telling people not to cast the first stone? Feeding the hungry? But I'm sure he would just kick an unwed pregnant mom to the curb. :roll:
She learns a lesson for next time.
 
She learns a lesson for next time.

Yeah, for sure. She'll learn well on welfare. Heck, maybe you can feel better by serving her soup in the homeless line.

Hahahah

Christianity has some beautiful morals, but so many fall short of them.
 
Accountability is not judgement.

Yes it is. It is deciding someone is deserving of punishment or consequences and acting on it.

I'm not saying that holding people accountable is wrong, I'm saying that IMO it's not the role of the church in the name of Christianity.
 
Lol that's great.
 
So ignore the failure to keep up her end of the bargain and retain an employee who doesnt show good moral character.... instead of firing her and making room for someone who is.... wow you are warped.

Yeah. I mean it's not like giving people a second chance is anywhere in the bible.
 
She is a minister in the church organization and has to follow the same guidelines.

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."
 
Yeah, for as much as they'll cry to think about the children, they sure didn't here. But I still say it's their call.

I agree it is their call.

But IMHO, not very Jesus-y.:(
 
I agree, the church is like a business and so they should have the right to hire or fire as they see fit. However, I am against their tax free status on income.

I wholeheartedly agree. If they give to the community, run a free clinic, operate a soup kitchen (etc)they can claim deductions.
 
They are free to do so. Though it's interesting how heartless and cruel Christians can be at times.

:shrug: it depends on how she is approaching it. We all make mistakes, but refusing to acknowledge those mistakes can be problematic for people in positions of influence in a church, especially over children. If this church doesn't want to be the place where 4 year olds learn "Oh no, I don't have a husband, I just sleep around with whoever I feel like", then I can understand that.



What I find interesting is that when we have this discussion about homosexuals, everyone rushes to insist that of course they would never force a church to hire or retain people who openly violate the moral code of the faith. So this could easily be a bit of a test case of that concept.
 
:shrug: it depends on how she is approaching it. We all make mistakes, but refusing to acknowledge those mistakes can be problematic for people in positions of influence in a church, especially over children. If this church doesn't want to be the place where 4 year olds learn "Oh no, I don't have a husband, I just sleep around with whoever I feel like", then I can understand that.

same church that teaches "judge not....", I'm sure, right?
 
Yeah. I mean it's not like giving people a second chance is anywhere in the bible.

Forgiveness =/= Retaining Someone Who Will Be Shaping Your Children.
 
same church that teaches "judge not....", I'm sure, right?

:) Interesting how everyone knows that verse, but no one bothers to find out what it means.

1 Corinthians 6 said:
2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! 4 Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, do you ask for a ruling from those whose way of life is scorned in the church? 5 I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers?

Christians are fully capable of judging deeds. What we are not to do is judge the status of someone's soul, nor assume that we are greater than another because of our ability to see their faults. This woman is certainly no better than I am (and, in all likelihood, is frankly much better of a person, if we are equal in our status as sinners).

Jesus was also clear about how to organize around public refusals to acknowledge ones' problems:

Matthew 18 said:
15 “If your brother or sister sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


Its worth noting that the next verse (“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.) forms (as I understand it) the basis for Catholic Excommunication.


All of which remains immaterial. Forgiveness is not the same thing as continuing to allow someone to be in a position of influence over children.
 
:) Interesting how everyone knows that verse, but no one bothers to find out what it means.



Christians are fully capable of judging deeds. What we are not to do is judge the status of someone's soul, nor assume that we are greater than another because of our ability to see their faults. This woman is certainly no better than I am (and, in all likelihood, is frankly much better of a person, if we are equal in our status as sinners).

Jesus was also clear about how to organize around public refusals to acknowledge ones' problems:



Its worth noting that the next verse (“Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.) forms (as I understand it) the basis for Catholic Excommunication.


All of which remains immaterial. Forgiveness is not the same thing as continuing to allow someone to be in a position of influence over children.



how do the verses you quote justify firing someone?



oh. they don't.



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