A Christian school fired a teacher when she requested a maternity leave shorter after her marriage. She admitted she had, gasp!, conceived 3 weeks before the wedding. Not only was she fired, she does not get maternity leave or benefits. And the school then informed her colleagues and the parents she was fired for "fornicating". I wonder, what would they have said to a certain lady who was reported to be pregnant about 2000 or so yeras back? story here
Most Christian schools have codes of ethics for their teachers. AT least the ones I've seen. My guess is she lied on hers. Also, in private schools, the teachers are called upon to be appropriate mentors for the kids. She's missed that boat as well. It's no difference in other jobs. To be employeed where I am, one has to have a dgree. If I lie about it, or my GPA, on my application or interview, then I may get shown the door. But I do uinderstand the need to go out of the way to skewer religous organizations. Many people have than frame of mind.
They probably wouldn't have believed that the conception was non-sexual, just like Mary's own fiancè didn't believe her. However, that's really not relevant to this situation, since this teacher did, in fact, have sex before she was married. Personally, I think the decision to fire her over a single indiscretion is contrary to church doctrine and is morally reprehensible. However, as a private, religious institution, I'm willing to bet that the courts find that they were well within their legal rights. Sad story--thanks for bringing me down.
I wonder....................... Let's say a gay bar had a requirement that all bartenders be a homosexual. An applicant stated on the application and in the interview they were gay to the hilt. Based on that, they get the job. After a few months it turns out the person was striaght and lied about their sexuality to get the job, so they were promptly dismissed. Would this be right? Does a business have the right to set their own rules of morality as they see it for their employees? Hey, post #4500 for me!
I think a more applicable analogy would be if a gay man were hired as the bartender at a gay bar, and then it was discovered after the fact that he once had sex with a woman, and he was fired for acting in a heterosexual manner.
I think mine is closer to the mark. But either way, the point remains the same. Certain businesses cater to a certain clientel with a certain expectation demanded upon that business. Therefore, right or wrong, they set up rules to meet those expectations. Is that right? I think it would be- be it a gay bar or a Christain school. When an employee violates the rules and stated values for that business, can they be dismissed? I would argue they could beso long as their civil rights are not being violated.
If a religious institution expects its employees to be beholden to a certain standard (in this case, Christian doctrine), then the administration thereof should be as well. Christian doctrine does not allow for excommunication after a single incident. Instead, it requires that a charge be brought by a single "accuser" (for lack of a better term), then a group of two or three, then for the case to be brought before the congregation, before a member is excluded. And in all cases, the goal is to bring the "sinner" to repentance. Unless Mrs. Hamilton was repeatedly confronted regarding this issue, continually iinsisting that she committed no sin by engaging in premarital intercourse, then this institution did not act in accordance with church doctrine in the course of her termination. They can't claim the moral high ground on one hand and then act immorally with the other. Well, they can, but they shouldn't.
My question to the principal would be "How have you gone through life without sinning?" If he has sinned, then he should turn in his resignation. A sin is a sin, and while I understand that some are worse than others, I don't care.
But she didn't lie. She was fired for being honest enough to tell the truth. Lying on an application is fraud. Having sex with someone you love and then telling your employer about it is upstanding. I realize there are different rules in play here, but as I said before, if this prinipal is without sin then more power to him, but if not, he should resign.
Nope, she was asked when she conceived and told the truth because she "did not want to bear false witness". Read the article before personal attacks, OK?
Why should he resign, again? Because he's not the perfect Son of God? I don't imagine that the conduct policy set forth by the school is the same as required by a holy, perfect and just God. If the principal did violate the conduct policy in a way that called into question whether he should be teaching children, his boss should be able to fire him, too. And this isn't a "church" matter of excommunication. It's a Christian school firing a teacher for cause. I'd imagine that her church hasn't invoked any church discipline, which is where Platypus' model of Christian doctrine comes in. Not in firing teachers. Would there be a problem if a Sunday School teacher were removed from his post after being found to have molested a child 8 months ago? Or if a deacon had been caught skimming from the plate? Both would preclude them from keeping their positions of responsibility, while not booting them out of the faith if there was sincere repentance.
My bad- I did miss that part. Well, OK, she confessed with the truth. However, on a moral plain requireed by the institution, I still see a justifiable firing.
She was living a lie. The school, I am certain, has a clear statement of faith- both moral and Biblical. She knowingly violated those terms when she worked there. She has confessed (most likely as she had to) her wrong and now is being punished. She has failed to be an example to the children she mentors. Sometimes by the mere fact we confess a wrong doing does not fully absolve us of the punishment fort hat wrong doing. If I stole a dozen laptops from work and tell my boss about it 2 years after the fact, why should I not expect to be appropriately disciplined? Because I waited 2 years to confess? I applaud her for coming clean, but agree with the dismissal. There are clear standards in her job. She failed to uphold them. Now she is paying the price. Tough love.
Poor examples--in both of the above, the person in question engages in an activity which speaks directly to his/her ability to perform the tasks necessary for the position in a trustworthy manner. This is not job-related; it is personal conduct only. I used the church model for intra-church discipline because (IMO) it is the most applicable church doctrine relating to this situation. One could also point to myriad Biblical examples of people who committed infractions yet were not immediately disqualified from the tasks God had set before them. Doctrine aside, the notion of dismissing an individual's ability to serve as a result of a single sinful act is inherently extra-biblical. If she were continually persisting in a sinful lifestyle, then that would be a different story. That said, I still agree that the school was within its rights to dismiss her if they so chose. However, if I were a parent of a student there, I would be looking for a different private school for my child.
Because Christ came to reconcile Man to God, not to enforce a law which is impossible to keep perfectly. This response smacks of the Pharisees, placing more importance on a person's actions than on their heart. That attitude is contrary to the Christianity I know, practice, and want my children to learn.
