Posted on 05/21/2002 12:07:48 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
She presses her nude body against the pole and slides down slowly and seductively to the loud, throbbing music. A middle-aged father slouches in his chair, his eyes filled with desire. Young men hoot and holler as her body arches and falls to the beat. An older man in the back allows his mind to succumb to fantasies of what it would be like to have her.
This is the stripper mom, and she just doesn't understand why she can't partner with a local Christian school.
Last week, the nation took notice as the mother of a kindergartner enrolled in Capital Christian School in Sacramento, Calif., complained to the press that her daughter had been expelled because of the mother's job. "How unfair," she cried. "How un-Christian."
Somehow, somewhere, there is a disconnect. Although the mother announced Monday that she would temporarily quit her stripper job so her daughter could remain in school for the remaining three weeks, she has made no commitment to stop stripping permanently. When explaining why she won't send her daughter back to the school next year, she said, "I want to find a school less concerned with image and more concerned with the welfare of children."
Unfortunately, it's not just the thought processes of the dancing-naked mother that have blown a fuse, but also those of political pundits, talk-show hosts and even a lot of Christians who were quick to criticize the school.
If the school administrators were concerned about PR, they certainly would not have taken the politically incorrect action of sticking to their principles. They took a lot of heat from folks that didn't think through the various issues of religious freedom, the rights of private institutions, parental responsibility and the Christian principle that families are the bedrock of society.
Let's focus, for a moment, on any one of the thousands of private schools that require uniforms. Imagine that a mother absolutely refuses to dress her child in the appropriate clothing, and sends her child to school, day-after-day, wearing whatever she chooses. Would there be a public judgment that the school is at fault if they no longer let the child attend?
Of course not. American society at large, and the parents who choose private schools in particular, understand that private schools get to set their own standards regarding uniforms.
Don't they also get to set their own standards regarding behavior? Shouldn't we be supportive of a Christian school that has the courage to say the behavior described above is immoral and unacceptable for partners of the school?
It's important not to confuse the mission of Capital Christian Church with that of its Christian school. It is quite clear the church is a place for the "saint" and "sinner" alike – it is an institution that opens its doors wide for all seeking truth or comfort. But as with most religious schools, the educational branch of the church is designed for the children of families who have already accepted and embraced the core religious beliefs.
In the stripper mom's mind, the government should order the Christian school and the 1,200 other families to change their standards to accommodate her personal immoral and behavioral choices.
Five-year-old girls look to their mommies with adoring, trusting eyes for guidance in how to live their lives. Why are so many Americans unwilling to flatly tell the mom that she – not the school – holds the responsibility for how her daughter is raised?
This mom doesn't believe she should be accountable to a contract she previously signed to partner with the school in support of its moral values. This mom is in denial that her decision to make easy, quick money playing on the lusts and desire of men who view women as nothing more than raw meat, will impact her daughter's life.
Although her case is extreme, we shouldn't be surprised by the mother's blindness.
How many parents have abdicated their responsibility of instilling moral values in their children? How many times have moms and dads decided that the school, or the church, or a grandmother, or the government must be required to take care of America's sons and daughters while the parents pursue the almighty dollar?
While we are all grateful for those institutions and individuals that step in and rescue children who are neglected by their own moms and dads, not every institution is structured to support such a calling. Some develop a mission to strengthen children through forming a partnership with parents. America and the Christian faith need both approaches.
Capital Christian School offered to waive tuition so the little girl could remain a student. They offered to walk "hand-in-hand" with the mother and help her leave a job that preys on the lusts of rabid men and requires mom to strip herself of both her clothes and her dignity. They offered to assist her in finding a new job and to support her efforts to build a better life.
But this mother refused. She chose to fulfill her desire to dance naked in front of men over the well-being of her own daughter. Let's hope her new decision to leave the strip-joint becomes a permanent one. Let's pray that she comes to realize that in offering mercy and demanding accountability, the school really did do what was best not just for the daughter, but for the mother too.
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.