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.
On top of that, she has some pride problems she needs to deal with.
Thank you!
Dan
(c8
Well isn't everyone touchy today, LOL. I guess what I wrote could have been taken the wrong way, so I'm not going to argue. I'm not talking about the preacher of the stripper mom's church in particular (I've been defending his position on other threads), but I do get a little tired of the "Church of Mammon" preachers that I've experienced in the past few years. Why does a pastor need to make 130k a year anyway?
That's what some of us are wondering about so many of the posts on these stripper-mom threads. I find it very unsetling that so many people can claim to be Christians and yet see no harm in this young mother's grossly immoral lifestyle. I am never surprised at the immoral behaviour, and the approval of immorality in others, by the unsaved worldlings who scorn and laugh at Christianity and Judeo-Christian morality in general. But I have read scores, perhaps hundreds, of posts in which the poster loudly proclaims his or her Christianity and then condemns this church for upholding a standard of morality which is in complete harmony with the teachings of the Christian bible. If anyone has any doubts about the biblical correctness of this church's stand on this issue, read the 5th chapter of 1st Corinthians. There are other passages in scripture in which gross, unrepented sin in the church is mentioned, along with instructions on how it is to be handled, but I don't have the references at hand and I don't have time to look them up. But I do know the church in question is handling the matter right in line with Paul's instructions to the Corinthians.
I don't know if this phenomonon is attributable to ignorance of biblical teaching or to the tolerant view of sexual immorality so prevalent among churches of the apostate mainline denominations. I seem to remember reading about a certain United Methodist church attended by the Clinton's which had experimented with nude entertainment of some type in it's basement rec room. Evangelical, fundamentalist churches such as the one being condemned so roundly on these threads seem to come under more criticism from other supposedly Christian people than from the unsaved world in general. Could it be that the biblically correct procedure this church has taken is so offensive to many worldly, tolerant "Christians" because it is a rebuke to their own lax moral standards and their ignorance of scripture? The bible tells us that the days will come when men call evil good and good evil. It seems those days have come.
I expect him to take custody of his daughter, care for, provide for, and protect her.
That's what fathers do.
The mother is irrelevant.
No.
She is irrelevant because single mothers as a class consistently fail to care for, provide for, and protect minor children.
The fact that she is a stripper, of course, worsens the odds-but not by much.
There were two approaches they could have taken: letting the girl finish the year, and then say she can't come back unless the mom changes careers, or the approach they took. The first approach would have probably meant that the mom would stay a stripper and just enroll the kid in another school. The approach they took resulted in the stripper dropping out of the stripping game for a few weeks, and maybe taking a look at what she really wants to do. I think they were acting from the viewpoint of what was best, long term, for the child
I've known some women who were ex-strippers. You associate with some nasty characters. A lot of the strippers do drugs, management is sleazy, etc. However much the mom might try to seperate home life and work life, eventually some of the ugliness would start coming home
Oh COME ON!! You aren't stupid, I have read some of your posts on other topics which made perfect sense and with which I could agree, and you know very well that there is absolutely nothing questionable about a job which is nothing more than providing simulated sex for a room full of desperate, pathetic men by lewdly gyrating on a pole while totally naked. It's immoral, indecent, lewd, and no one in their right mind would have the slightest doubt about it's status as an acceptable "profession" in an Assembly of God church. This pathetic woman had once taught a Sunday school in that church, she knew very well what the attitude of that church, or any other true Christian church, would be toward her job, she can't plead ignorance on that count.
I am of the opinion that she deliberately planned this entire sorry escapade for publicity she couldn't get any other way. She has played her role very well. One month ago she was just another sleazy stripper making some easy money conning stupid, half-drunk, lust-inflamed men out of $20 bills in some slummy bar on the wrong side of town. Today she is a well known public figure who has gained the sympathy of millions of Americans because she has been "ill treated" by those hated, narrow minded Christian fundamentalists. Instead of just a few dozen losers in a shabby strip joint, she is now lusted after by millions of men eager and itching to shove money into the hands of pornographers to see what she has to offer on triple-X videotape and a full-color magazine spread. As has already been noted on most of the "stripper mom" threads, she will undoubtably be seen wearing only the famous staple in her belly button in a soon to be released issue of Playboy or Penthouse. Or more likely, the filthy rag published by Larry Flynt. Someone from the porn video industry will be calling shortly afterward, and the cable and satellite porn channel execs will be waiting in line for her debut film.
Going from a thousand dollar a week job cavorting naked on a beer-splattered stage to a quarter million $ deal for a half-day photo shoot and a lucrative new career isn't a bad deal if you are a totally amoral slut with no regard for your own self worth or the future of your 5-year old child. Or for your future place of abode when the gray old man with the hood and the scythe comes calling.
Yes, it is WAY harder, but doable. I see the up-close results of parents who worry more about themselves than their kids (I deal with minors who have committed serious crimes). This does not apply to all single moms by any means, but I can't believe the number of them who make dumb choices, either dating a succession of men, not healthy for their kids, or making the kinds of choices this mother did. Did they not realize that by having kids, they signed on to put the kids' welfare first?
The stripper/mom took the easy bucks instead of finding something that would not affect her child, a total innocent in this whole situation. I'm glad the church and the mom were able to work it out so the child could remain in school, but I doubt that the mother learned anything from all this except that many people supported her breaking the contract she had made and went after the "Christians". Too bad that energy wasn't expended into helping her reroute her choices.
Did you read my post?
Do you understand the meaning of as a class?
You do not, I hope, contend that the economic status, health status, and physical safety of children living with single mothers is in any way comparable to that of children living with their fathers, do you?
But, the agreement she (and all the other parents) signed is so vaugely written and open to interpretation that nearly every job in America has aspects that could be considered 'inconsistent with christian life' and therefore their children subject to expulsion. I have been suggesting that the school adopt a difinitive list of jobs that are not acceptable. With out a difinitive list, Job A could be ruled AOK one day and "not allowed" the next day.
Got a grudge against a parent, or don't like their kid for some reason, file a claim with the school that their job or lifestyle is 'incompatible' with christian life, thus causing them great problems. As we know, adults are not above using their own or others children to obtain results they desire against other adults.
I also find it impossible to believe that this women "planned" this whole thing as you suggest. Has she taken advantage of the situation for a big PR campaign? Yes. But to think that she planned this is to suggest the nearly impossible. Her daughter has been at the school the entire school year and with 3 scant weeks to go before the end of the year the school discovers what her job is and sends the girl packing. For her to have "planned" this, one would have to believe that she purposefully entered her daughter in this school with the intention of having her kicked out for the express purpose of creating a PR campaign. Not to mention that the girl has been enrolled there for 9 months now. Why would she "plan" for that? If she had "planned" something, one would think it would have come to fruition far quicker.
Oh, Phewey.
Single fathers, as a group, tend to have been married to the mother, are middle class and working.
Single mothers comprise a large group of women from the lowest social strata to the highest, many of whom were never married at all. That tells you something right there about the morals of one of the subsets of single mothers (and it also tells you something about the morals of the bio fathers in that subset as well.)
The group of single fathers tends not to include that group of men.
The contract is not vague in this case at all. Everyone, including you, understands she violated its terms. Complain about capricious use of the "vague" clause when something ambiguous comes up.
This ain't it.
SD
And I am continuing on the vagueness because posters continue to post to me under the impression that I think the clause didnt cover stripping. Which I have repeatedly said it does.
I am on the side of the school. I just think they should have handled it as I described way back at the top of the thread.
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.