Skip to comments.CNN Anchor Draws Legal Parallel Between Catholic Teacher's Firing and Sharia Law Stoning
Posted on 05/31/2013 4:20:42 AM PDT by NYer
Chalk this one up to the absurd. CNN's Ashleigh Banfield on Wednesday tried to draw a legal parallel between a Sharia Law execution and a Catholic school firing a teacher for violating her contract by disobeying church teaching on pregnancy. Banfield argued both violated the teacher's Constitutional rights.
"Well if it's an Islamic school and they decide to go with Sharia Law and they decide to stone me for this, they can't do that either," Banfield ridiculously argued. "Then don't sign up to be the teacher," responded prosecutor Christine Grillo, who multiple times reiterated that the teacher had violated her contract.
The teacher in question, Christa Dias, was fired from her position with the Archdiocese of Cincinnati because she got pregnant through artificial insemination, contrary to the teaching of the Catholic church. Since her contract stipulated that she could not do that, Dias was fired.
Banfield was obviously frustrated with Dias's plight. "At what point, though, do their rules and regulations stomp all over your rights as an American?" she fretted, comparing the firing to segregation.
"Separation of church and state," answered Grillo. "You are deciding to work for a Catholic school. It's just like deciding to attend a Catholic school. You are there – you must abide by the rules and regulations or they are free at will to kick you out."
Banfield then tried to pull the segregation card. "For instance, I could go to that school and sign up as a teacher, and they can't tell me that I can't drink from a water fountain because I'm white," she bizarrely insisted.
Grillo immediately shot her down: "they're not saying that within the Bible and the practices of this religion that you can't drink out of a water fountain because you are white. These are long known standards and beliefs of the Catholic faith."
Below is a transcript of the segment, which aired on CNN Newsroom on May 30 at 11:46 a.m. EDT:
ASHLEIGH BANFIELD: Let's go to another school district, shall we? In fact, it's in Ohio, and it's a Catholic school teacher at question now. That teacher was fired because she got pregnant through artificial insemination. And now that teacher is fighting back. Her name is Christa Dias, and she's suing the school and the Roman Catholic diocese, or archdiocese, rather, in Cincinnati. Diaz is gay. And she told jurors in her case this week that she did not know that artificial insemination violated church doctrine.
A lot of issues are at play here. So I want to turn to Christine Grillo who is with the Brooklyn D.A. For starters, she did not have premarital sex. And that's one of the tenets that apparently this plaintiff, or rather this defendant had to sign away when she signed contracts to work at the school. She didn't do that, but she got artificially inseminated, which apparently is in the contract. So is it kind of cut and dry?
CHRISTINE GRILLO, prosecutor, Brooklyn District Attorney's office: It's contractual. This is a contractual law issue. And when you think about it, there are so many other issues at play. There is your sexuality, there is premarital sex, there's artificial insemination. People full of opinions about all of this. But when you cut simply to the point here, she went to work for a Catholic school. The Catholic school has rules. In order to work for that school, they have you sign a contract to follow our rules. You can't say ignorance. It's no defense. It's just no defense, not even in this.
BANFIELD: It's funny the school had to answer the question. What about a man? Let's say there was a male teacher who with his wife, they were unable to conceive, so they went through artificial insemination and had their baby. He would be also breaking the doctrine and should be fired?
GRILLO: According to their doctrine at this particular point if he had signed it at the time, then yes, contractually the law would state that they broke the contract. Now that doesn't mean – they said they'd never been presented with that issue. So they've never had to decide it for that –
BANFIELD: Because the men don't usually show up with big tummys.
GRILLO: That is the point – and that is a point well taken. They may not know. Once again, it isn't going to be something against women because we are the ones who carry the babies.
BANFIELD: Okay, so it's church doctrine. But we have federal law that protects us from being fired for getting pregnant even if we intend to –
GRILLO: Separation of church and state.
BANFIELD: I knew you were going there.
GRILLO: I am. Because this is a Catholic school. You are deciding to work for a Catholic school. It's just like deciding to attend a Catholic school. You are there – you must abide by the rules and regulations or they are free at will to kick you out.
BANFIELD: At what point, though, do their rules and regulations stomp all over your rights as an American? For instance, I could go to that school and sign up as a teacher, and they can't tell me that I can't drink from a water fountain because I'm white.
GRILLO: Right. However, they're not saying that within the Bible and the practices of this religion that you can't drink out of a water fountain because you are white. These are long-known standards and beliefs of the Catholic faith. And if you want to go and work for a school that is teaching this Catholic faith –
BANFIELD: Well if it's an Islamic school and they decide to go with Sharia Law and they decide to stone me for this, they can't do that either.
GRILLO: Then don't sign up to be the teacher. If you can't –
BANFIELD: But they can't do it. Even if you sign up and sign that contract, federal law protects you. You would think it would protect you against these kinds of tenets.
GRILLO: Protecting you from stoning you to death and protecting you from your ways to conceive or – actually, no one even mentioned the sexuality. That I'm surprised that they didn't even go back to her about the sexuality. If that's within the contract, I don't know. But just what you're saying, let's say that Islamic school does not allow you to show your face, that you need to wear the appropriate garb required for Islamic religion. And you decide that, no, I'm not going to do this anymore. You can lose your job. You must abide by the contract that you've signed up to work for.
BANFIELD: I could argue about this all day because if they force me to go get my driver's license and wear that veil, I'd say no. No, because the law won't let me. But you have to come back and we'll have to talk about this once we figure out where they go with this case. Christine Grillo from the Brooklyn D.A. She is tough. She is so Brooklyn.
Title should read: CNN Anchor ... ping!
Another brilliant Progressive using the racism card.
(One wonders when it will finally be worn out.)
You must have to flunk an IQ test to be a CNN news babe.
Too bad, she would be very not guitly if she wasn’t so stupid.
In this case, the anchor babe is out of intellectual ammunition so she appeals to white guilt by playing the race card.
It happens all the time in liberal land.
Funny thing is that this former teacher’s union doesn’t even support her.
Assleigh looks slightly deranged.
CNN, MSNBC, ABC management have a knack for hiring ditzy, weird and other types (including homosexuals and lesbians) driven insane by their obsession with Obama and socialism.
Then there’s Fox News’ Sheppard Smith.
Sign a contract
break the terms of the contract
Claim the contract THAT YOU SIGNED violates your Constitutional rights
Socialist: The reward is you’re not punished.
Capitalist: The punishment is you’re not rewarded.
In socialist countries, there is no getting ahead. And the counter-party to every transaction and relationship is the state. So, motivation is merely negative and involves the coercive force of the state.
In capitalist countries, there is getting ahead and the state is minimal. So, in the private sector, “punishment” consists of being boycotted, fired or shunned by others.
As for stoning, notice that this goes beyond withholding rewards. This is a punishment. Only the state has the power to do this, and this would require due process. And, for conservatives, the punishment should fit the crime.
(Although I will not develop the argument here, Jesus clearly taught that “stoning” is to be regarded as a euphemism for shunning; and, even, that we should hope for and even have some confidence in the return of the person shunned.)
For many Muslims, their religion is dialectic, or total, encompassing everything, there is no separation of church and state, everything is religious. Hence, stoning and other punishments of people for infractions of the rules of what we would see as private organizations like a church are okay because there really aren’t any private organizations.
My dreem girl is the one in the TV advertisement for Geek Squad - where the teenage boy selects from a bunch of geeks in pacakages and one of them is a hot blonde with the glasses
This is another one:
Her train of logic has many wrecks along the way. She obviously lives in a socialist fantasy world where all things delusionally fit into the progressive mindset only.
Trying to follow Ashleigh is like trying to follow someone who is stoned. Whatever CNN pays her must qualify as charity.
I saw a guy working in his yard with no shirt on yesterday and thought... yuck, gross! I get the same reaction when I see this photo with the chest showing. Why do these people not get it?
Although I realize this is not an excuse, it is quite plausible that she really didn't know. I mean, she would have to affirmatively seek out that knowledge because the church isn't exactly shouting it from the rooftops.
I've attended over 3000 Catholic Masses and I can't recall the subject ever being brought up. It may have once or twice but I really don't think so. Abortion has been brought up in about six homilies out of 3000, homosexuality twice, contraception about three times, modesty about three times. I can't remember theft ever being brought up. If I had to guess I would say that any kind of sin has been the subject (minor or main) of perhaps a couple dozen homilies over the years. Although in the prayers of the faithful we do always pray for an end to abortion and peace and justice among nations.
I must say that I was thrilled to hear the Pontiff denounce the sin of gossip. It's a particularly bad sin and I never hear it mentioned. It's also one that I have witnessed priests engaging in. I won't mention names because that would be gossiping.
Let’s stop using the term progressive to describe leftists. It is newspeak, designed so that each time we, their opponents use it we look like tegressoves, barbarians. Don’t fall for it, stop calling them progressive or gay or pro-choice or liberal or you end up calling us regressive, depressing, anti-choice, illiberal. Call them leftists, homosexuals, pro-death/anti-life, leftists. Also never use the term homophobe or islamophobe. Disliking those two are not mental diseases
By the time whites grow a spine it will be too late
A brown citizenry will teach about extinct whites like we talk about Nazis
Nice tan and figure and pointy nose
But no lips
“By the time whites grow a spine it will be too late. A brown citizenry will teach about extinct whites like we talk about Nazis”
Possibly, though an increasing number of our brown citizens come from countries where everything fell apart after they chased the whites out (hence they flock here to once again have working sewage, reliable electricity, etc.). I am shocked at how passive whites are about the unfolding demographic disaster; their refusal to breed, while funding those who do, is bizarre...
“Call them leftists, homosexuals, pro-death/anti-life, leftists.”
They are “post-Christian savages”. I’ve always warned Christians about labeling Islam a “cult” because the left is always trying to apply the same label to us (as this airhead is doing).