Posted on 10/16/2010 5:38:49 AM PDT by Colofornian
I’m not defending the behavior. I’m saying that I don’t understand what makes this particular woman’s behavior worthy of firing, when my company actually offers health care to same-sex partners AND unmarried couples living together. How is what she is doing (married to one man, and faithful) worthy of firing when those other things are encouraged?
When did employment become the enforcer of moral codes?
And when did we go after women for the sins of their husbands, just because those women weren’t strong enough to stand up to their mates?
Some people seem to forget that the father of Israel was a polygamist. He was, of course, sinful.
And yet I’ve not heard anybody here arguing that Sarah should have been fired from her job because she allowed Abraham to have another wife.
Yes, I know it was another time. But it’s funny still to see the outrage which supposedly is about marriage but does seem more about religion.
Given that she was the 1st wife, if anybody is the legal spouse, it is her.
And if she has her children on the roles, that would be proper, since they are her children.
Yes, I don’t know the details. And I’ve said before that there are certain jobs where this kind of thing might be relevant, but my comment was a general one about most jobs. I can’t imagine Walmart would really care if a cashier was on a TLC show married to a man who was cheating on her with other women, even if he called them “wives”.
(1) Sinful? Yes. God never told Abraham to sleep with Hagar for a night. The Angel of the Lord--whom most commentators think is the pre-incarnated Son of God, told Hagar post sleepover to return to her mistress (master Sarai) and to submit to mistress Sarai. (He never said to return to "your husband, Abram"...see Genesis 16)
So. Was Abram a polygamist? No.
Q. Why not?
A. Concubines were not considered "wives." And the only one who ever references Hagar as a "wife" is Sarai/Sarah. (But we never know if Abram slept with Hagar even more than once).
Q. Who continues to deem Hagar a servant/slave after sleeping with Abram?
A. …Abram,
…Sarai,
…the Angel of the Lord (who some say is the pre-incarnated Son of God),
…Moses (Gen. 25),
…even the apostle Paul (Gal. 4:21-31),
…and Hagar herself.
Sarai labels Hagar as a gift as a "wife" to Abram, but I question if a woman has the authority to "consent" on behalf of a slave.
Hagar was considered a slave both "before" and "after" sleeping with Abram. Why does the "before" matter? Just as a minor cannot "consent" to sex, a slave is in no better situation to "consent" to--or deny--her master's commands for sex. And in this case, the command didn't come from her husband, Abram; it came from her mistress (female word for "master"), Sarai (Sarai is twice referenced as "mistress"--Gen. 16:4,8).
Why does the "after" matter?
Because it shows she didn't become a "transformed" person--from slave to wifely status! Gen. 16:6,8,9; 21:11; 25:12; and Gal. 4:21-31 all are still referencing her as either a "slave" (twice in 21:11), "servant," or one who was told by the Angel to submit to her mistress (female word for "master"). By Gen. 25, Abraham is married to Keturah with no mention of Hagar (25:1) and is then buried with Sarah (25:10).
So, to summarize: If we were to call all the key witnesses to the stand, and hear what they have to say:
Q Hagar, after Sarai gave you to Abram and Ishmael was conceived, did you still acknowledge Sarai as your "mistress" in your conversation with the Angel of the Lord? [female master]
A Yes. (Gen. 16:8)
Q Sarai, when you were in your early nineties when Isaac was a toddler, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Abraham, Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son, Isaac. (Gen. 21:10)
Q Abraham, after Sarah gave you Hagar and you slept with her, how did you characterize Hagar?
A I told Sarah, as mistress (master) of her servant, Your servant is in your hands. Do with her whatever you think best. (Gen. 16:6)
Q When Sarah began to mistreat her servant, Hagar, did you intervene like what we might expect a husband to do?
A No. Hagar was Sarah's servant.
Q Angel of the Lord, when you called to Hagar after she conceived Ishmael, how did you reference her?
A Servant of Sarai (Gen. 16:8)
Q And when you conversed with Hagar, did you, Angel of the Lord, acknowledge that she was released from her servant role to Sarai?
A No. In fact, I told her Go back to your mistress and submit to her. (Gen. 16:9)
Q Moses, since you wrote Genesis, how did you identify Hagar in her last reference of that book? Did you link her to Abraham?
A No. I identified her as "Sarah's maidservant" (Gen. 25:12).
Q So in that same passage, you link Ishmael to Abraham, but you link Hagar only to Sarah?
A Yes.
Q Apostle, Paul How did the Holy Spirit lead you to interpret the Old Covenant as expressed through Abraham?
A For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother...Now you brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son.' Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. (Gal. 4:21-31)
Seems like a weak point to argue, since we had Jacob, who obviously slept with his two wives multiple times, and his sons were the 12 tribes of Israel, which came from both of his wives along with their concubines.
Again, not saying this was right, just that it happened. So even if you want to argue that Abraham was not a polygamist, you’ll have to argue that Jacob was not as well.
Also David, who had multiple wives; and he was the archetype “King of Israel”. Solomon also had multiple wives (actually, in his case “multiple” doesn’t do him justice).
I notice that you have refrained from the policy of abandoning the sons of the family at puberty, which is an integral part of a polygamous society. In the US they end up dead or on welfare, do you approve of this part of polygamy or not?
Not really. Jacob got two wives via deception at the hands of his father-in-law. (Unless you think institutionalizing deception integrated into marriage is an "OK" deal...you know, like how a man might defraud a woman into marrying him, not knowing he already has a wife...your logic there is like saying just because somebody famous and otherwise respected did that, then you might as well not only decriminalize it but emulate it!)
As far as Jacob sleeping with concubines, let's pull out a parallel situation closer to our times: Many historians believe Thomas Jefferson initiated a long-term affair with a 15 or 16 yo slave girl of two of his daughters while in France (Sally Hemings). See many sources, including http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1015/article_detail.asp
Now Sally Hemings at the time was not (initially) the slave girl who attended to Jefferson (she attended to his two daughters), just like the concubines Jacob slept with attended to Jacob's wives. But still, they were all slaves. In Jacob's case, these women had no rights to say "no" to what their mistresses desired them to do. And what rights did 18th century slaves in this country have about who they slept with or didn't?
Anyway, you're not going to start arguing that just because some famous leaders (Jacob and Jefferson) slept with some slave girls, that we can now downplay men sleeping around in arrangements beyond their wives, are you????
Solomon also had multiple wives (actually, in his case “multiple” doesn’t do him justice).
Charles, have you ever noticed these "before and after" passages involving Solomon, where God told Solomon not to do something or a certain thing would happen. And guess what? It happened!
Let's start with what Solomon already knew by his teen years as far as what God's will on marriage was:
17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. (Deut. 17:17)
He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray. 4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God... (1 Kings 11:3-4)
Also David, who had multiple wives; and he was the archetype “King of Israel”.
We know David slept with a number of women, even women who were the wives of other men (Bathsheba). So let's review what might be "transferable" to modern times per your reference:
Besides Bathsheba, who were the women David slept with?
(1) David's first wife was Michal, daughter of Saul. Saul took Michal, however, and gave her to another man (1 Sam. 25:44) at a point when no other women were part of David's life.
(2) Concubines who he inherited when he took over Saul's kingdom. (They came with the "palace," so to speak.) How do we know they were concubines? 2 Sam. 16:21-22 convincingly shows us that those referenced in 2 Sam. 12:8 were concubines. 2 Sam. 16:21-22 shows us they weren't sexually loyal to David (and David made no personal fuss to his son, whom these concubines slept with in broad daylight on roof for all of the community to see). Were concubines usually considered as "wives"? (No -- concubines is another word for servant girls or slaves).
So you don't think sleeping with slave girls or servant girls is transferrable to modern times, do you Charles?
(3) During that era --David & the next two generations -- who you slept with wasn't simply a "changing mores" issue as much as a royal alliance issue...tribal heads would give a daughter or another member of that tribe to another king or even future king as an issue of being part of a peace pact.
Is there such an example we know of with David? Yes. Absalom was his son born of Maacah, daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur.
So you don't think sleeping with daughters being traded for political peace purposes is transferrable to modern times, do you Charles?
(4) Bathsheba. We know that circumstance. What we don't know with Bathsheba is how many of David's previous wives were still alive when he married her. In fact, Nathan, when he confronts David about that, doesn't mention his four or five earlier wives, one of whom was given to another man by the father of that woman. Nathan only mentions concubines David inherited as part of the kingdom. Certainly, we know how he slept with her when she was another man's wife. You don't think sleeping with another woman whose the wife of another man is transferrable to what we should do in modern times, do you, Charles?
(5) OK, of all the women that David slept with in 2 Sam. 3 that resulted in sons, and believe me, he slept with several, who's conspicously not "identified" as his "wife?" Answer? Haggith and Abital who are listed before Eglah (Eglah is identified as his wife).
IOW, we don't know if Haggith and Abital were his wives, or concubines. (That passage in 2 Sam. 3 immediately goes on to talk about Saul's concubines)
So, not knowing these two women's status (or Maacah above) that leaves only two WIVES whom we know of for certain that were simultaneously married to David (Ahinoam and Abigail) -- 1 Sam. 25.
So, we know David had a lot of wives. But we don't know the timing for each of them (especially Eglah in comparison to Ahinoam and Abigail). How many of them were wives simultaneously (vs. serially). Except for Ahinoam and Abigail, we don't know.
Bottom line: So you're going to defend an entire instititution (polygamy) based upon David taking a second wife and a series of serial wives?
Is that like asking when I stopped beating my wife? Of course I didn't abandon my son at puberty. Of course, I'm not a polygamist either. Or are you under some mistaken notion that I am defending the life of polygamy? Because I've clearly stated more than once that the man is a criminal ahd should be in jail. My argument has been a social one -- should an employer punish a woman who is legally married to just one man, because the man has also decided to sleep around with other women and the wife won't leave him or condemn him? My assertion is that a company should only do this if her job is by nature one where such a lifestyle would prevent her from performing her duties. And also that if we are going to start punishing women whose husbands are alleged to be criminals (I say alleged because he has not yet been arrested, much less charged and convicted), simply because those wives won't leave him, then there will be a lot of women who could be fired. It makes me nervous when conservatives are on board with companies enforcing moral codes that aren't related to the business, not because politically speaking government can't tell companies how to do their business, but because we tend to apply the tests very selectively, based on what we think are sins and what sins we decide are the "really bad ones" -- like DeMint and single mothers and gays, or here with wives who don't object to their husbands sleeping around. I tend to be more libertarian. I know how to live my life, and I would tell anybody to live a moral life, but to the degree their lifestyle doesn't impact the job, I don't really support companies enforcing a particular moral code, be it christian, muslim, or hindi. I also, to some degree, like to argue technical points in the hopes it helps some people think more broadly about some issue, by contrasting and comparing -- in this case, for example, noting that since most polygamists (don't know if this man falls into the category) don't actually get legal marriage certificates for the extra wives, they literally are not doing any more than having one wife and then sleeping around with other women, kind of like concubines, but pretending they are wives. Some people don't like to argue more than what is right in front of them, and like to keep their blacks black and their whites white. I found similar discussions when I used to argue that those who object to gays in the military on MORAL grounds (rather than the socialogical argument that it destroys troop morale, and the base argument that you can't set up facilities to separate gay soldiers from straight soldiers), should be equally upset about soldiers who go off and sleep with prostitutes, or have affairs, because all are sexual sins.
I don’t know how you equate a factual biblical statement of fact about sinners as “defending polygamy”.
Jacob was not tricked into having two wives. He was tricked into marrying a woman that wasn’t the one he purchased. He then chose to purchase the other woman and marry her as well.
Of course, if he hadn’t gotten so drunk that he couldn’t recognize the woman, he probably wouldn’t have been tricked.
Anyway, my point was never that polygamy was good, just that we don’t generally tend to blame the women when the men jump into polygamy. I’ve never read a biblical commentator who faulted Rachel for marrying Jacob when he already had a wife, or Leah for not divorcing Jacob when he started sleeping around.
In this case, (without enough information about her job), I found it debate-worthy that the woman who was the first wife of the man, and so far as we know from the article has committed no crime nor herself engaged in any immoral behavior, was being fired from her job, because she wouldn’t denounce her husband.
I doubt we would want to support firing a woman if her husband beat her regularly, but she wouldn’t press charges or divorce him.
Yes, he was. In that culture, for example later such as when Joseph was betrothed to Mary, it was almost as good as being married. The commitment was already there. I mean, what? Did you think Jacob was just going to abandon Rachel and forget his commitment to her?
If a hospital official tricks you into taking the wrong baby home from the hospital (with or without the aid of alcohol), and you discover that a week, a month, or a year, later, I mean, what? You have no commitment to that child you were tricked into leaving in the care of somebody else?
And if you could relocate and bring your child back into your arms, you wouldn't do it? What if the parents of the child you took home wouldn't take back that child -- but was willing to give back your child, so that suddenly you have two "almost twins"?
I’ve never read a biblical commentator who faulted Rachel for marrying Jacob when he already had a wife...
As I've just said, when you were betrothed in that culture, it was as good as getting married. Rachel was already betrothed to Jacob, so in some ways, she was first. Even though Leah considered Jacob as her husband that Rachel had taken away (Gen. 30:15), what wife has to hire her husband to sleep with her like Leah had to do? (Do you not read before you comment? Leah had to give Rachel some of her son's mandrakes in order to sleep with Jacob even for a night...and Leah references that sex as "I have hired you..." ... see Gen. 30:15-16).
I’ve never read a biblical commentator who faulted...Leah for not divorcing Jacob when he started sleeping around.
Leah herself was part of the cause of Jacob extending his "sleeping around." She gave him her servant to sleep with!!! I guess you haven't read very widely, then. I mean, what do you think biblical commentators give Rachel and Leah? standing ovations for telling Jacob, "Hey, sleep with my slave girl"???
Biblical commentators frequently point out the dysfunctional nature of that household:
Rachel provoked Jacob to anger (Gen. 30:2)
Then she provoked him to sin by having him sleep with Bilhah (Gen. 30:3)
Rachel herself confessed her sibling rivalry going on: "Then Rachel said, 'I have had a great struggle with my sister, and I have won.'" (Gen. 30:8)
Which in turned prompted Leah to sin by repeating the sleep-around (Gen. 30:9)
Rachel loans out the sex bed in their household in exchange for Leah's son's mandrakes (Gen. 30:15-16)
And Leah is treating her husband like a prostitute, buying bed time so that he can sleep her to get pregnant (Gen. 30:15-16)
Leah concedes she feels "dishonored" in her relationship with Jacob (Gen. 30:20)
And due to the sibling rivalry that led to Leah bearing more sons than Rachel, Rachel for a long time felt "disgraced" by the whole thing (Gen. 30:23).
Do you think these are the "transferable" traits we should all bring into modern households, Charles?
Jealousy? Rivalry? Sleeping around even with non-marital partners? Buying bed time? Dishonor? Disgrace?
All because Jacob's household engaged in these things.
You're showing exactly why the 19th century Mormons were so gullible. All Joseph Smith had to say was, "Hey, Abraham did it. Jacob did it. Solomon did it. I'll do it, too."
But it's almost like the early Mormons, and fLds today, haven't read Genesis 30...haven't read 1 Kings 11...or Deut. 17...or Gen. 16...or Galatians 4.
I mean, hey, Hosea married a prostitute who carried on that "cottage industry" post-marriage;
Moses killed a man;
Paul engaged in persecution of the church...
David had sex with another man's wife and then committed manslaughter, in effect, to bump him off and cover it up...
Should we likewise embrace those things just because God's grace and mercy overcame such human sin and weaknesses and God still accomplished His purposes?
I found it debate-worthy that the woman who was the first wife of the man, and so far as we know from the article has committed no crime nor herself engaged in any immoral behavior, was being fired from her job, because she wouldn’t denounce her husband.
No, you are stating this in the negative...that she simply was "guilty" of not denouncing her husband...IOW, a "sin of omission." Sorry. Doesn't fly. Perhaps 19th century "sister wives" could be classified as such. Not in today's world. In today's world, this wife was an active accomplice. IOW, she wasn't only an open recipient to her husband's desire, but she helped him carry out the plan.
Let’s get into the 21st century. This woman knew when she married him, and agreed to it, that he wanted to marry more than one woman. She did not have to marry him under those circumstances but she agreed with it. Therefore, she is just as guilty as he is.
I have a feeling she know longer is as keen on it as she was, but she may feel she’s stuck with it. I hope she changes her mind and gets out. She only has one child.
I would be just as disgusted by a woman who is being beaten doing a tv show in which she thinks it’s just a-okay to be beaten.
I believe that a private employer should be able to fire anyone, at any time, for any reason, so long as the reason is not illegal. The job is the private property of the employer.
A government employer is more restricted, just one more reason to have the absolute minimum number of government employees.
It's OK to sin, so long as you have a good enough excuse?
Or it wasn't a sin to marry two women?
After all, the passage never really says that Jacob did anything wrong by marrying two women. But since we are all arguing that polygamy is wrong, I presume that was a starting point for discussing Jacob and his sin. And yet I don't think anybody here thinks Rachel should have been fired from her job for being Jacob's second wife.
Or, if you presume that there was some common-law marriage before Jacob had paid for Rachel through his work, the same would be true for Leah.
And now we are going to argue about some reverse prostitution as if it changes the marriage contracts between the three of them?
Still don't see how you can justify firing the first wife of a guy because he is a sleezeball and she won't divorce him and chooses to honor him while he sleeps around.
A private employer is generally allowed to fire people for any reason. We aren’t talking about what they are legally allowed to do, we were talking about whether the action made sense. And in fact, we were mostly just debating whether their action could be justified because the woman was some sort of immoral wench, as some among the first commenters suggested.
There is no justifying involved. It was the employer’s decision and nobody’s business. If he fired her because she had the wrong color lipstick, fine. If he fired her for her lack of morality, in his opinion, fine. As long as he committed no crime, let the busybodies stay out of his private decisions, including his decision to be a busybody in his employees’ business, if that is what happened. To even mention it implies that his decision is subject to some sort of social or political review. In short MYOB!
What the heck, Adults committing Incest will the next Civil Right. How dare Government make Laws violating the Civil Rights of Siblings, First Cousins or Parents and their Adult Children who want to Marry each other?
Once the door is opened, how do you close it?
The Country is swirling down the drain.
I guess I’m not making myself clear. We aren’t arguing on this thread with the employer who fired her — he doesn’t so far as I know have an account here, or read what we are writing.
We are discussing the opinions of people who actually DO post here. And those opinions about what actions are right or wrong have nothing to do with whether the employer had a right to fire her for any reason.
You have a right to smoke cigarettes, but if we were discussing someone starting smoking, I would tell them it why it is generally a bad thing to do, notwithstanding they have a right to do so.
I’m offering a contrary opinion to those who have argued NOT that the employer had a right to fire her, but rather that the employer WAS right to fire her.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.