• 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!

Teacher Claims She Was Fired From Catholic School For In Vitro Fertilization

Top Cat said:
So Webster's Dictionary is wrong then? Really? Keep digging.
Click to expand...
Actually, you've proven my point on post #174, definition 3.
 
Wake said:
Actually, you've proven my point on post #174, definition 3.
Click to expand...

Don't let the fact that I clearly wasn't using that definition get in the way of your apology.

Wow, just wow. Here I thought you were simply being obtuse. You really can't comprehend the subtleties of the English language and have no concept of semantics. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
Last edited:
Top Cat said:
I wasn't using that definition
Click to expand...
You may not have been using that definition, but in the process you've inadvertently proven me correct, in that all members of the congregation are the church. Definition #3 that you provided directly applies to the issue we're discussing, and completely validates my statement.
 
Wake said:
You may not have been using that definition, but in the process you've inadvertently proven me correct, in that all members of the congregation are the church. Definition #3 that you provided directly applies to the issue we're discussing, and completely validates my statement.
Click to expand...

Dude, give it a rest. You were wrong. Just admit it and move on.
 
Top Cat said:
Dude, give it a rest. You were wrong. Just admit it and move on.
Click to expand...
That's intellectually dishonest. Through the course of this discussion you haven't effectively supported your argument, and instead has accidentally proven my point. This is why you should slow down and use more accurate words when making a claim. You have not proven me wrong, you arguments have repeatedly been weak, and you you refuse to acknowledge your simple mistake on this issue. The congregatiom is the church, and the sooner you acknowledge that the better for all involved.
 
Wake said:
That's intellectually dishonest..
Click to expand...

Look, I made clear statements that I hate the catholic church for numerous reasons i spelled out in several posts. Each time I was referring to the leadership of the church. I made statement to that end as well. Had you read my posts only a 2nd grader (or someone with a 2nd grade mental capacity, take your pick) would come to the same conclusion as you are suggesting.

You come along and try to suggest I meant all the people who are members of the church when in fact you clearly know otherwise and i have clarified numerous times..

And you have the balls to call me " intellectually dishonest " ?

Run along son. I am done with you.
 
Last edited:
Wake said:
That's intellectually dishonest. Through the course of this discussion you haven't effectively supported your argument, and instead has accidentally proven my point. This is why you should slow down and use more accurate words when making a claim. You have not proven me wrong, you arguments have repeatedly been weak, and you you refuse to acknowledge your simple mistake on this issue. The congregatiom is the church, and the sooner you acknowledge that the better for all involved.
Click to expand...



Top Cat isn't going to listen to me anyway, because apparently he believes I'm one of those crazy right-wingers, but Wake is correct. The Church is only as strong as it's members. Without members, a church is just a building. Matthew 18:20 says For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. That basically means that you can have church in your living room, under the oak tree at the park, or on the deck of a cruise ship.
 
You and Wake sure have moved the discussion far and away from the original topic in a pointless waste of energy over a misinterpretation of a word.

It was explained above, this has becoming meaningless.

Anytime you want to get back to the topic is fine with me.
 
This whole thread is a pointless waste of energy. Nobody wants to admit that she broke the rules so her contract isn't getting renewed. It's a very simple issue that has been turned into a movie-of-the-week. She didn't follow the rules, so her contract isn't renewed. I'd love for somebody to tell me (and I've asked in this thread several times) about a job where you can break the rules and not get fired.
 
Superfly said:
This whole thread is a pointless waste of energy. Nobody wants to admit that she broke the rules so her contract isn't getting renewed. It's a very simple issue that has been turned into a movie-of-the-week. She didn't follow the rules, so her contract isn't renewed. I'd love for somebody to tell me (and I've asked in this thread several times) about a job where you can break the rules and not get fired.
Click to expand...
It is obvious that you don't understand what the conflict is about. The conflict is whether a teacher at a catholic school, who is not a catholic, who teaches a secular subject, is a minister and is covered by the ministerial exception.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You and Wake sure have moved the discussion far and away from the original topic in a pointless waste of energy over a misinterpretation of a word.
Click to expand...

I didn't misrepresent the word. That was my point all along. Even when I took out the dictionary, Wake was hellbent on suggesting that the definition doesn;t matter and that it wasn't what I was using. He was wrong.
 
Last edited:
Superfly said:
Top Cat isn't going to listen to me anyway, because apparently he believes I'm one of those crazy right-wingers, but Wake is correct. .
Click to expand...

I thought at least you had a lick of sense on this, apparently not. The manner in which I used Church is defined below (emboldened and linked). It's in the dictionary. Look it up. I understand the concept to which you refer is also a definition of the Church. The problem is, it is not what I was talking about. The congregation doesn't make the 'rules" or move priest around to avoid prosecution etc. the leadership does. That is who I have my beef with. Why is that so difficult to understand?

: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body

Church - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It is obvious that you don't understand what the conflict is about. The conflict is whether a teacher at a catholic school, who is not a catholic, who teaches a secular subject, is a minister and is covered by the ministerial exception.
Click to expand...

No, the conflict is whether or not the teacher should not have to follow the rules set forth by her employer. She has rules, she agreed to them when she was hand-fed this job fresh out of college, and now she doesn't want to follow the rules, and wants to sue instead.
 
Top Cat said:
I thought at least you had a lick of sense on this, apparently not. The manner in which I used Church is defined below (emboldened and linked). It's in the dictionary. Look it up. I understand the concept to which you refer is also a definition of the Church. The problem is, it is not what I was talking about. The congregation doesn't make the 'rules" or move priest around to avoid prosecution etc. the leadership does. That is who I have my beef with. Why is that so difficult to understand?

: the clergy or officialdom of a religious body

Church - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

When all else fails, call somebody names, right? Besides, your blind hatred of the Church and everything involved in it is transparent, and is making this thread redundant.
 
Superfly said:
When all else fails, call somebody names, right? Besides, your blind hatred of the Church and everything involved in it is transparent, and is making this thread redundant.
Click to expand...

When all else fails, avoid the facts. They get in the way of a good argument. Seriously. Avoid the facts at all costs.
 
Superfly said:
This whole thread is a pointless waste of energy. Nobody wants to admit that she broke the rules so her contract isn't getting renewed.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone has denied that she broke the rules as the employer interpreted them (though there could be a question of how unspecific they were). The core issue is whether the terms of that contract are legal in this case, in the context of anti-discrimination laws.

There seems to be a general acceptance that there is a discrimination case to answer since the schools defence is that as a religious organisation, they have an exemption to those laws.

This isn't about contract law, it's about whether the religious should be granted exemptions to laws and if so, how wide and deep those exemptions should be (specifically whether they extend to secular employees of a religious school).

Superfly said:
I'd love for somebody to tell me (and I've asked in this thread several times) about a job where you can break the rules and not get fired.
Click to expand...
If a contract states that you can't convert to Catholicism, if would still be illegal to sack a newly converted employee. If a contract states that you have to obey the instructions of your manager, if they order you to do something illegal, it would still be illegal to sack someone for refusing to do so.
 
Last edited:
ReverendHellh0und said:
You know if you change "Religious people" to say "hispanics", that might constitute hate speech. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I didn't know "Hispanics" were big on the suicide bomber market. Maybe you know something I don't?

Then again if you want to go back to the crusades, We only have to go back to WWII where we see the godless commies, killed what 100 million?
Click to expand...

Over political ideology. Not atheism itself. Thanks for the red herring though?
 
Last edited:
HonestJoe said:
I don't think anyone has denied that she broke the rules as the employer interpreted them (though there could be a question of how unspecific they were). The core issue is whether the terms of that contract are legal in this case, in the context of anti-discrimination laws.

There seems to be a general acceptance that there is a discrimination case to answer since the schools defence is that as a religious organisation, they have an exemption to those laws.

This isn't about contract law, it's about whether the religious should be granted exemptions to laws and if so, how wide and deep those exemptions should be (specifically whether they extend to secular employees of a religious school).

If a contract states that you can't convert to Catholicism, if would still be illegal to sack a newly converted employee. If a contract states that you have to obey the instructions of your manager, if they order you to do something illegal, it would still be illegal to sack someone for refusing to do so.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Joe, for a real answer after 20 pages.
 
Top Cat said:
(1) Look, I made clear statements that I hate the catholic church for numerous reasons i spelled out in several posts. Each time I was referring to the leadership of the church.

(2) You come along and try to suggest I meant all the people who are members of the church when in fact you clearly know otherwise and i have clarified numerous times..

(3) And you have the balls to call me " intellectually dishonest " ?
Click to expand...

(1) You don't hate the Catholic Church. You hate some or all of the leadership within the Catholic Church. When you say you hate the Catholic Church you inadvertently refer to the whole congregation.


(2) You may be using the 2nd definition, but that does not negate the fact that there is also an official 3rd definition, and that it directly applies to this issue. In trying to prove me wrong with definition #2 you provided definition #3, which validates my point, that the Church is the whole body of Christians.

Top Cat said:
Church - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

1church noun \ˈchərch\

Definition of CHURCH

3
often capitalized : a body or organization of religious believers: as
a : the whole body of Christians
b : denomination <the Presbyterian church>
c : congregation
Click to expand...


(3) You are and have been. I've been civil and respectful towards you this whole time, only to recieve vitreol and weak responses. I've already shown that you were wrong in stating you hated the entire church, and that what you really mean is that you hate the leadership within the church. When you say you hate the Church, you accidentally say you hate everyone in it. It appears this discussion with you is going nowhere, so since I've summed up my points I'll leave you with the last word.
 
Wake said:
(1) You don't hate the Catholic Church. You hate some or all of the leadership within the Catholic Church. When you say you hate the Catholic Church you inadvertently refer to the whole congregation.
Click to expand...
FFS, give it a rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom