Posted on 05/21/2002 12:07:48 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The school doesn't need more restrictions. It needs to be left alone to teach.
My church has "kicked out" pillars of the community. And we also have an EX stripper who is welcome. Some churches do attempt to abide by New Testament teachings.
If there is a list at application then the parent knows what they are getting into and knows what to expect.
Dripping with irony.
The school has the right to remove anyone for any reason. That is the safest way to handle it and the parents know the rules. The school gives the parent the chance to end the behavior or remove the child. They don't need to endure a lot of problems just because they didn't have a specific rule regarding the behavior.
My wife is the director of Children and Family ministries at a fairly liberal Presbyterian Church. She also teaches at the pre-school.
Seems this story raised a ruckus there too. BTW when the political litmus test was applied to this one, the libs were BY FAR on the side of keeping her in the school. Ah-hem.
The point that shut them all up was when my wife said, "what makes you think the woman wanted a Christian education for her child?" Now before you state the obvious, let me point out that in my wife's "Christian" school about 20% of the kids are Jewish, about 5% Islamic, and over half have no official church affiliation. So why do they go to a "Christian" school? Lots of reasons.
1. Before my wife got there, you would have been hard pressed to discern that it was a Christian school at all. No chapel, no grace at meals, no Christian curriculum, not even Christian posters. My wife changed all that, but the "other than Christian" still attend.
2. The school is convenient to many parents. It is situated close to downtown and it is easy to drop kids off on the way to work.
3. The school is cheaper than most of the private secular pre-schools.
4. There are no free, public pre-schools. Public education doesn't start in our area until kindergarten. Yeah, there is head start, but most non-minorities wouldn't send their kid there under any circumstance.
So maybe this stripper sent her kid to that school for reasons other than religion. Maybe it was convenient, maybe it was cheap, maybe she thought they didn't take Christianity seriously.
In any event, from a conservative point of view, a private institution has a right to associate, or not associate with, whomever they like, within the bounds of the law. From a Christian point of view, it appears that they attempted to be Christ-like in their compassion, but even Jesus had no compassion for those who were unwilling to stop sinning.
To distill so much quintessential cluelessness in one posting must have taken a great deal of thought and effort. I stand in appropriate awe.
Dan
The problem is, that almost any job has aspects to it that they could say "are not compatible".
Dan
This would have been a reasonable treatment of the situation, with 3 weeks left in the girl's classes. The mother would have had months to consider her future.
Why give the press ammunition?
Banks? I don't think so. Maybe if they operated a "rent-to-own" or "paycheck advance" business.
The problem is, that almost any job has aspects to it that they could say "are not compatible".
Every job certainly has opportunties to behave in an unChristian manner. But to call stripping an "aspect" of her job is stretch things a bit. It is the essence of the job.
And your protestations to the contrary, anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows that stripping is not consistent with a Christain ethic.
Period.
SD
And being that 'usuary' is the charging of interest on money loaned, Banks would clearly fall into that catagory.
You guys know the rules..
Stripper-Mom would make it an issue next year, too-- this was just a matter of time and attention. Why is a story like this, national news? The liberal press flies into action with sinsational tabloid reports. No one had their civil rights violated and no one broke the criminal laws-- as far as we know.
You can argue against the "ambiguity" of the clause when it is used in morally ambiguous cases. This ain't one. Or do you think it is?
And being that 'usuary' is the charging of interest on money loaned, Banks would clearly fall into that catagory.
Usuary is the charging of excessive interest. In the economy we have now, inflation is a given. One who loans money without accouting for inflation or the oppportunity cost of other uses of the money is basically losing money whenever he makes a loan. This is not just.
SD
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.