Posted on 05/23/2002 7:12:13 AM PDT by Pokey78
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:19 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Church and State....
Parental Rights and In Loco Parentis contracts...
Single-Mom Strippers and no-good Deadbeat dads...
On any Forum but Jerry Springer's, this story is too rich for words.
So I will only say this...
"Stripper Mom" spent $4,800 of her own money on private ecucation.
Meanwhile, the Publik Skool down the street spends $7,000 per child, per year, of her tax dollars (and ours).
Without approving of her life-choices...
...it's no wonder she never had any money.
Actually, Genesis chapter 4 is one of the most misunderstood passages in all of Scripture.
If you think that this passage teaches that your "Brother's Keeper", you have just completely misunderstood one of the the two fundamental bases of Biblical Law.
YOU ARE NOT YOUR BROTHER'S KEEPER.
Challenge to the Atheist OWK -- tell me why this is so, before one of my fellow Bible-thumpers can beat you to the punch.
Hint: Check Nymeyer's stuff on the subject over at Libertarian Press.
Oh, you are SOOOOOO right on! The disingenuousness just drips from their words. If they can't point to something you think/say/do and point their crooked fingers and say "HYPOCRITE!" they will say you are a "Goody Two-Shoes" or snicker, "You need to get laid."
I know this, by the way, from personal experience.
What you wrote is what I thought when everyone was bashing Dr. Laura (although she was never a Christian) over her past misdeeds. Those people were assailing her as a hypocrite, saying "How can she talk about premarital sex and shacking up and adultery being wrong when she did it herself?" as if they would embraced the principles she espouses today if she had always lived in accord with them.
That may be the stupidest statement yet made on this topic.
Finally, I wish someone could tell me why no one is hounding the father of the kids as to why he isn't paying the tuition anymore. They're making the school the bad guys. Where's Poppa?
Of course, I disagree.
If you follow this thread you will discover there are some self proclaimed Christians positing, the school by its act of expelling a kindergarten child will garner God’s favor, and show the world how Christian love flows.
They toss Bible passages around like Frisbees in an attempt to justify their contempt for both God and his creation, talk about your stupid ideas, that beats all.
Nope..:>) That was a poor sarcastic response then and it is a poor response today!
Pro 12:22 Lying lips [are] abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly [are] his delight.
She WAS given a chance. She specifically refused.
WHY ARE SO MANY THREATENED BY THIS WOMEN. BEACUSE SHE'S A STRIPPER, ARE YOU ENVIOUS, OR FEARSOME OF TEMPTATION ?
Where on earth did you get the crazy idea that anyone is threatened by her?
she's still just a person trying to get by. I may not approve of her job, but then I don't have her financial responsibilities.
This excuse could be used to justify everything from drug dealing to bank robbery. Paying bills is not an excuse.
Without knowing her heart, can you be sure that you are SO much better than she is ?
I never, ever, ever claimed to be better than her. This is a completely false accusation, frequently thrown at Christians whenever they stand against sin. It's a cheap attempt to distract the debate from the real issue.
I don't claim to be better than her --- I merely claim that she is involved in a sinful activity. Who hasn't been, somewhere in their past? But Christianity requires that one walk away from sin, as best as one is able -- and this, she will not do. I'll tell you right now, before I got religion, I once, in my not-very-misspent youth, visited a strip bar. Knowing God as I do now, I would never do such a thing NOW. I repented (that's a fancy oldfashioned word for, "changed my mind"), and NO LONGER do such things. If I returned to that activity, I would EXPECT my church to confront me about it, and if I persisted, it would be their DUTY to kick me out.
There's no rule in Christianity against associating with NON-believer sinners (Jesus did this quite frequently, actually), but, if someone professes to be a Christian, they must then QUIT their sins to be retained in fellowship. Mary Magdalene, for instance, was an EX-prostitute. No matter what a person's PAST, if they leave it behind they are retained in fellowship. But...the Bible explicitly commands that HYPOCRITES -- those who claim Christianity but don't live it -- be cast out of the church. This is to protect the witness of the Church. Catholics have a real problem with that right now, so you can see why it's so important to keep the Church clean.
But, why kick out the daughter? Well, the school requires a contract, that the parents uphold Christian morals, or the kids can't attend. That's the contract the mother agreed to. She read it, she signed it, she broke it. Her own fault. As to WHY they have this rule -- I can only guess. Perhaps they don't want other children to be indirectly contaminated by the bad example of one parent. They are, perhaps, trying to protect many other children by expelling this one. An arguable decision, but not an obviously wicked one.
I would guess if this women was a bookie, or a drug dealer there wouldn't be nearly so much flack.
I'm sure this is true, but not in the way you mean it. If she were a drug dealer or bookie, I'm sure that nobody would be defending her. But since her offense is sexual, she represents an area of idolatry for this culture -- an area that it will NOT allow God's standard to touch.
No you're not. You are just proving you know nothing about men and their sex drives. Either that,or your desire is to have all men locked up.
And of course it is HER fault that you are a horndog,right?
The mother had two choices: expel herself from a sinful, un-Christian profession that she implicitly agreed not to entertain employment in as a condition of having her child enrolled, and enduring the temporary pain of her child being expelled. SHE initially chose the latter.
They toss Bible passages around like Frisbees in an attempt to justify their contempt for both God and his creation, talk about your stupid ideas, that beats all.
Like I mentioned earlier, the people who object to chapter and verse quotes always respond with very little scriptural backup. Arne and paulson2 at least came up with vague allusions. You brought a complete dismissal of the Bible.
Apparently, you think that the Bible in general and the gospels in particular have nothing to do with what Christianity is. Think again. Did Jesus just pull random thoughts about what seemed fair to him from thin air, or did he cite scriptural principles from the previous law first of all?
From what you are saying now, it seems that you are among the huge number of people who think all there is to know about Christianity is "love one another" and the fact that he gave his life on the behalf of all sinners. His ransom is not a "Get out of jail free" card allowing us to sin with wanton impunity. There are standards of Christian behavior that have to do with sexual matters, and Christina Silvas was violating them. That is a FACT, and if you disagree, bring something besides your personal opinion to prove me wrong to counter what I and many others have posted to affirm that FACT.
If you had bothered to think about what the aim of the school's agreement really is rather than postulating your own twisted fantasies of pastors with "contempt for God and his creation," maybe it would have occurred to you that the school requires the cooperation of the parents in the Christian education of its students rather than being put in the unenviable position of having to combat un-Christian lifestyle examples taught at home.
Oh, come off it.
I don't care who you are, when you meet someone and they say what their profession is, you think of them doing whatever they do. If Ms. Silvas was a dog groomer, you would think about her brushing a poodle. If she was a welder, you would think of her with a blowtorch and a helmet. If she was a surgeon, you would think about her wearing scrubs and gloves.
She was a stripper. So you think of her naked. It's the natural reaction. Besides, she depended on "horndogs" for her living. It's the reaction she wanted.
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.