PDA

View Full Version : Catholic school teacher fired over pregnancy




aGameOfThrones
02-05-2014, 05:20 PM
BUTTE, Mont. (AP) — An unmarried teacher at a Roman Catholic middle school in Montana has been fired after getting pregnant, the Diocese of Helena confirmed.

Patrick Haggarty, the superintendent of Catholic schools for the diocese, said Tuesday that Butte Central teacher Shaela Evenson "made a willful decision to violate the terms of her contract," which requires her to respect the moral and religious teachings of the Catholic Church in both her professional and personal life.

"The Catholic moral teaching is that the sacrament of marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman," Haggarty said. "And we certainly believe and we teach our children who attend our schools about the sacrament of marriage. That's as old as our church. Not only do we teach that to the children kindergarten through 12th grade, but we're held to that standard as well."

Evenson told The Montana Standard (http://bit.ly/1cRNElh) that she is pursuing legal action, but deferred other questions to her lawyer. An email from her attorney, Brian Butler of Cincinnati, said he was not available to answer questions until Wednesday.



http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-school-teacher-fired-over-pregnancy-211336686.html

jj-
02-05-2014, 05:21 PM
Yeah, Catholicism teaches sex should occur after marriage, but I already knew that.

asurfaholic
02-05-2014, 05:22 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-school-teacher-fired-over-pregnancy-211336686.html

Im cool with it. private school? private rules. private contract. She agreed to it.

angelatc
02-05-2014, 05:23 PM
Im cool with it. private school? private rules. private contract. She agreed to it.

Yep. Catholic school, Catholic morality.

tod evans
02-05-2014, 05:30 PM
All schools should be private.

The country can't afford the ones we have now anyway.

69360
02-05-2014, 05:32 PM
So? Private schools make their own rules.

James Madison
02-05-2014, 05:38 PM
War on Womyn.

Expect maximum jimmy rustling.

GunnyFreedom
02-05-2014, 06:01 PM
The only thing wrong with this article is her plans to take legal action. Not only did she have a contract that she should respect, but also a Catholic school is just not going to be OK with an out-of-wedlock mother as a role model for their students.

VIDEODROME
02-05-2014, 06:02 PM
So basically if you sin than you're fired?

Maybe you miss Church? Or you dare work on a Sunday? Fired?

Brett85
02-05-2014, 06:03 PM
So basically if you sin than you're fired?

Maybe you miss Church? Or you dare work on a Sunday? Fired?

She violated the terms of the contract that she signed onto.


Patrick Haggarty, the superintendent of Catholic schools for the diocese, said Tuesday that Butte Central teacher Shaela Evenson "made a willful decision to violate the terms of her contract," which requires her to respect the moral and religious teachings of the Catholic Church in both her professional and personal life.

mosquitobite
02-05-2014, 06:10 PM
So basically if you sin than you're fired?

Maybe you miss Church? Or you dare work on a Sunday? Fired?

If she signed a contract agreeing to such, yes!

tod evans
02-05-2014, 06:23 PM
So basically if you sin than you're fired?

Maybe you miss Church? Or you dare work on a Sunday? Fired?

Or ya' don't go work where the terms of employment don't suit ya'....

GunnyFreedom
02-05-2014, 06:24 PM
So basically if you sin than you're fired?

Maybe you miss Church? Or you dare work on a Sunday? Fired?

If you ran a liberty school, you would likewise fire someone that took a night job as a cop and went around shooting people for fun, or openly praised tyranny in front of every class they taught every single day. If you ran a private school with the primary purpose to teach kids "a," why would you keep a teacher who stood up in front of your kids every single day and pissed on "a?" Simple, you wouldn't. You are just upset because they are upholding a standard that you, personally do not agree with. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

XNavyNuke
02-05-2014, 06:57 PM
Yep. Catholic school, Catholic morality.

......
XNN

VIDEODROME
02-05-2014, 07:05 PM
lol

Just thinking anyone there could be fired. Unless they're so virtuous nobody but this one woman has sinned.

Unless pregnancy out of wedlock is a sin they think deserves special consideration in an employment contract for some reason. That a single mother should be fired. Nevermind that she better have the baby, because they are so pro-life. That baby better be born, but we'll fire the mother bringing financial hardship making it harder to raise a child.

Oh I'll agree any dope employer can make up a contract and have the right to fire a person if it's violated. It just seems like they're very narrow minded and short-sighted. I would like to be proven wrong later if an article says they'll help out the single mother with childcare.

Brett85
02-05-2014, 07:11 PM
Unless pregnancy out of wedlock is a sin they think deserves special consideration in an employment contract for some reason.

It's just a sin that's much more visible. Children can see that their teacher is pregnant and know that she isn't married, and a Catholic school wouldn't want that teacher as an example to their kids. On the other hand, if a school teacher cursed under their breath, that would be a sin, but it wouldn't be a visible sin that anyone would know about.

squarepusher
02-05-2014, 07:23 PM
lol

Just thinking anyone there could be fired. Unless they're so virtuous nobody but this one woman has sinned.

Unless pregnancy out of wedlock is a sin they think deserves special consideration in an employment contract for some reason. That a single mother should be fired. Nevermind that she better have the baby, because they are so pro-life. That baby better be born, but we'll fire the mother bringing financial hardship making it harder to raise a child.

Oh I'll agree any dope employer can make up a contract and have the right to fire a person if it's violated. It just seems like they're very narrow minded and short-sighted. I would like to be proven wrong later if an article says they'll help out the single mother with childcare.
have an abortion. problem solved ! back to work on Monday.

VIDEODROME
02-05-2014, 07:25 PM
I dunno. As for setting an example, one could point to this being poor judgement or a bad situation. One might show a little forgiveness though.

Or not be so quick to cast out someone for making a mistake. State the case that as a Pro-Life organization you want to see the child born and thrive and be a supportive influence. At the same time, it can still be pointed out that even the church is not a real substitute for an absent father in the family.

One other thing to consider is whether any children see this example who have divorced parents. If so, this could freak them out.

jj-
02-05-2014, 07:33 PM
I dunno. As for setting an example, one could point to this being poor judgement or a bad situation. One might show a little forgiveness though.

Or not be so quick to cast out someone for making a mistake. State the case that as a Pro-Life organization you want to see the child born and thrive and be a supportive influence. At the same time, it can still be pointed out that even the church is not a real substitute for an absent father in the family.

One other thing to consider is whether any children see this example who have divorced parents. If so, this could freak them out.

If you don't like the conditions, don't fire your employees who get pregnant, end of story, nobody forces you to do otherwise.

eduardo89
02-05-2014, 07:35 PM
Why is this news?

NIU Students for Liberty
02-05-2014, 07:41 PM
I dunno. As for setting an example, one could point to this being poor judgement or a bad situation. One might show a little forgiveness though.

Or not be so quick to cast out someone for making a mistake. State the case that as a Pro-Life organization you want to see the child born and thrive and be a supportive influence. At the same time, it can still be pointed out that even the church is not a real substitute for an absent father in the family.

One other thing to consider is whether any children see this example who have divorced parents. If so, this could freak them out.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTX5dTCCOj4

VIDEODROME
02-05-2014, 07:44 PM
What happens if a guy working for them got somebody pregnant out of wedlock? I would if he would be fired.

DamianTV
02-05-2014, 07:49 PM
The biggest problem is the Catholic Church thinks that its power over individuals should not end there.

jj-
02-05-2014, 07:52 PM
What happens if a guy working for them got somebody pregnant out of wedlock? I would if he would be fired.

So what? It's their business. Busybodies like you probably don't hire anybody, yet have the gall to stick their noses in other people's business.

erowe1
02-05-2014, 07:53 PM
Why is this news?

mosquitobite
02-05-2014, 07:59 PM
I dunno. As for setting an example, one could point to this being poor judgement or a bad situation. One might show a little forgiveness though.

Or not be so quick to cast out someone for making a mistake. State the case that as a Pro-Life organization you want to see the child born and thrive and be a supportive influence. At the same time, it can still be pointed out that even the church is not a real substitute for an absent father in the family.

One other thing to consider is whether any children see this example who have divorced parents. If so, this could freak them out.

This is why I am no longer Catholic. I agree with you here.

But I also agree that a contract is a contract.

erowe1
02-05-2014, 08:11 PM
What if this were a story about Sikh school firing a teacher for cutting his hair?

Would that be newsworthy?

DamianTV
02-05-2014, 08:17 PM
The biggest problem is the Catholic Church thinks that its power over individuals should not end there.

So eduardo gives me a -Rep for this.

His comment: "its voluntary". Sure, its voluntary, IF you are a catholic and work for a catholic church or a catholic school. But missed the point that if the Church had its way, it would extend its level of control over those that do NOT voluntarily comply with the rules of the Church. In the end, the Church will demand obedience from those that are not Catholic, Christian, or even Religious. And there in lies the problem. The Church will use this voluntary interaction as a step to control those who do not and have not voluntarily submitted. Its not much different than refusing to pay for Birth Control, regardless of the religion of the employee.

The Rights of the Church END where the Rights of the Individual Begin.

jj-
02-05-2014, 08:20 PM
So eduardo gives me a -Rep for this.

His comment: "its voluntary". Sure, its voluntary, IF you are a catholic and work for a catholic church or a catholic school. But missed the point that if the Church had its way, it would extend its level of control over those that do NOT voluntarily comply with the rules of the Church. In the end, the Church will demand obedience from those that are not Catholic, Christian, or even Religious. And there in lies the problem. The Church will use this voluntary interaction as a step to control those who do not and have not voluntarily submitted. Its not much different than refusing to pay for Birth Control, regardless of the religion of the employee.

The Rights of the Church END where the Rights of the Individual Begin.

Who cares, there are other religious groups and millions of atheists who will never let them get away with that. You wrote this post 500 years late.

DamianTV
02-05-2014, 08:31 PM
Who cares, there are other religious groups and millions of atheists who will never let them get away with that. You wrote this post 500 years late.

It wasnt the point. The point was "how dare anyone oppose MY religion" as expressed by Eduardo. Its not the Religion itself thats the problem, the way the Members of each Church decided to behave is the problem. Many members will be respectful of the beliefs of others, while some members will try to enforce their will, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, on to all people they can get away with. The actions of our Govt indicate clearly that most of what is happening to us is completely Involuntary. Yet, they ram their decrees down our throats with zero regard for the individual.

In another 500 years, the same things will likely still happen, with the same excuses. Religious Hatred is as timeless as the universe itself.

eduardo89
02-05-2014, 08:34 PM
Its not much different than refusing to pay for Birth Control, regardless of the religion of the employee.

So you think the Church should be forced to pay for birth control?

erowe1
02-05-2014, 08:37 PM
It wasnt the point. The point was "how dare anyone oppose MY religion" as expressed by Eduardo. Its not the Religion itself thats the problem, the way the Members of each Church decided to behave is the problem. Many members will be respectful of the beliefs of others, while some members will try to enforce their will, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, on to all people they can get away with. The actions of our Govt indicate clearly that most of what is happening to us is completely Involuntary. Yet, they ram their decrees down our throats with zero regard for the individual.

In another 500 years, the same things will likely still happen, with the same excuses. Religious Hatred is as timeless as the universe itself.

You can believe all that.

But the problem is that it looks like you're trying to say the OP supports that belief.

DamianTV
02-05-2014, 09:27 PM
So you think the Church should be forced to pay for birth control?

Sure, why not. Might as well stuff some more words in my mouth so Im on record as saying "Church should also be forced to pay for flat out Abortion" too.

Thing is, source of the Conflict itself still remains unidentified, and it isnt either the Church, their actions / interactions with the Individual. The source of the Conflict is the Govt decree that Churches shall pay for all healthcare of the Individual, regardless if they have any reasonable moral objections to it or not. The thing is, when Govt gets involved, the ability for the Individual and the Church to work these differences out between themselves is no longer an option, hence the Conflict. This is what destroys the Voluntary Interaction of the two parties to be possible. Govt is the problem. As long as Govt continues to be able to make these mandates, the Conflicts themselves will continue.


You can believe all that.

But the problem is that it looks like you're trying to say the OP supports that belief.

Thats one of two things Im saying. I do believe the OP supports that belief. 2nd thing is that the Church, if given the chance, would also try to enforce Nonvoluntary Obedience. Not all Churches will do this, but give enough leeway, some members will try to do it regardless if they have the Right to do so or not. Govt passing a law that causes the conflict does not give either party superiority over the other. Govt is the problem, but the Church doesnt help the matter very much with its demands either. The Church could give two shits less if an employee is a Catholic, Christian or Atheist, they demand Obedience to their policies as much as Govt demands 100% compliance with its Laws.

VIDEODROME
02-05-2014, 09:52 PM
So what? It's their business. Busybodies like you probably don't hire anybody, yet have the gall to stick their noses in other people's business.

Well, I am not of the opinion that the force of government should used to interfere with their policies. I am just expressing my doubt on the wisdom of their policies.

I also think that if a person in this situation files a lawsuit they should lose if this really is in their contract.

VIDEODROME
02-05-2014, 09:54 PM
So eduardo gives me a -Rep for this.

His comment: "its voluntary". Sure, its voluntary, IF you are a catholic and work for a catholic church or a catholic school. But missed the point that if the Church had its way, it would extend its level of control over those that do NOT voluntarily comply with the rules of the Church. In the end, the Church will demand obedience from those that are not Catholic, Christian, or even Religious. And there in lies the problem. The Church will use this voluntary interaction as a step to control those who do not and have not voluntarily submitted. Its not much different than refusing to pay for Birth Control, regardless of the religion of the employee.

The Rights of the Church END where the Rights of the Individual Begin.

Didn't they basically do this to Ireland? That is why we should care.

V3n
02-06-2014, 07:54 AM
Mary wasn't married when she became pregnant.

erowe1
02-06-2014, 08:03 AM
Mary wasn't married when she became pregnant.

But unlike Mary, this lady isn't still a virgin.

angelatc
02-06-2014, 09:16 AM
Oh I'll agree any dope employer can make up a contract and have the right to fire a person if it's violated.

As it should be. If you are concerned about her well-being, then by all means, step up and hire her.

jbauer
02-06-2014, 09:24 AM
lol

Just thinking anyone there could be fired. Unless they're so virtuous nobody but this one woman has sinned.

Unless pregnancy out of wedlock is a sin they think deserves special consideration in an employment contract for some reason. That a single mother should be fired. Nevermind that she better have the baby, because they are so pro-life. That baby better be born, but we'll fire the mother bringing financial hardship making it harder to raise a child.

Oh I'll agree any dope employer can make up a contract and have the right to fire a person if it's violated. It just seems like they're very narrow minded and short-sighted. I would like to be proven wrong later if an article says they'll help out the single mother with childcare.

Mehh, my one side is all Catholic, I'm a rebel raiser Lutheran and work with our private school. The pregnancy thing is in black and white in her contract. She can sue all day but she wont win. This type of case has been beat in court several times.

jj-
02-06-2014, 10:53 AM
As it should be. If you are concerned about her well-being, then by all means, step up and hire her.

Or volunteer to help raise the baby. Donate some money for the well being of the mother.

aGameOfThrones
02-06-2014, 11:10 AM
Thats one of two things Im saying. I do believe the OP supports that belief. 2nd thing is that the Church, if given the chance, would also try to enforce Nonvoluntary Obedience. Not all Churches will do this, but give enough leeway, some members will try to do it regardless if they have the Right to do so or not. Govt passing a law that causes the conflict does not give either party superiority over the other. Govt is the problem, but the Church doesnt help the matter very much with its demands either. The Church could give two shits less if an employee is a Catholic, Christian or Atheist, they demand Obedience to their policies as much as Govt demands 100% compliance with its Laws.


I'm lost, what belief?

Snew
02-06-2014, 03:11 PM
ok. I don't see the problem. She knew what she was getting into.

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 03:17 PM
What if she discreetly had an abortion before they found out to save her job?

limequat
02-06-2014, 03:20 PM
What if she discreetly had an abortion before they found out to save her job?

If a contract is violated in the woods does anybody hear it?

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 03:32 PM
What if she discreetly had an abortion before they found out to save her job?

Well obviously if the school never found out they wouldn't be able to fire her...because they wouldn't know she had broken the contract...

Ender
02-06-2014, 05:46 PM
Sure, why not. Might as well stuff some more words in my mouth so Im on record as saying "Church should also be forced to pay for flat out Abortion" too.

Thing is, source of the Conflict itself still remains unidentified, and it isnt either the Church, their actions / interactions with the Individual. The source of the Conflict is the Govt decree that Churches shall pay for all healthcare of the Individual, regardless if they have any reasonable moral objections to it or not. The thing is, when Govt gets involved, the ability for the Individual and the Church to work these differences out between themselves is no longer an option, hence the Conflict. This is what destroys the Voluntary Interaction of the two parties to be possible. Govt is the problem. As long as Govt continues to be able to make these mandates, the Conflicts themselves will continue.



Thats one of two things Im saying. I do believe the OP supports that belief. 2nd thing is that the Church, if given the chance, would also try to enforce Nonvoluntary Obedience. Not all Churches will do this, but give enough leeway, some members will try to do it regardless if they have the Right to do so or not. Govt passing a law that causes the conflict does not give either party superiority over the other. Govt is the problem, but the Church doesnt help the matter very much with its demands either. The Church could give two shits less if an employee is a Catholic, Christian or Atheist, they demand Obedience to their policies as much as Govt demands 100% compliance with its Laws.

That's blatant baloney.

A church has the right to it's beliefs. YOu have the right not to believe and the right not to work for them. If you get fired for not following your contract with a private school, then so be it.

No sympathy here.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 06:00 PM
That's blatant baloney.

A church has the right to it's beliefs. YOu have the right not to believe and the right not to work for them. If you get fired for not following your contract with a private school, then so be it.

No sympathy here.

It sure does have the Right to its beliefs. So do I. However, the Rights of the Church do NOT supercede the Rights of the Individual. The Rights of BOTH End where the Equal Rights of others begin. Again, problem here is the Govt. Take an Austrian Economist and a Keynsian Economist, lock them both in the same room and demand the only subject they can talk about is the Economy, and you are bound to have a conflict.

The other misconception here is that Contract Law supercedes Natural Rights. There are things that can be satisfied by both parties in a contract, and there are things that can NOT be satisfied in a contract. You work for me for X in wages. You do the work, you've earned those wages. You dont do the work, its a natural violation of contract. What I cant do in that Contract is take ownership of things that do not belong to me. You work for me and I'll give you something that does not belong to me, say for example, your neighbors car. Other things that would be excluded in the realm of Contract Law are things that are not involved in the consideration of satisfaction of the contract. While you work for me, I retain the Right (not actually a right, but agreement) to deduct wages if you do not Floss at home. Anything in your home is considered beyond the Scope of the Contract. As a result, there are many reasons why a Contract can be considered Invalid. Courts are used to uphold Contracts, but they are not always able to anything about the Source of the Conflict itself. It isnt the Contract itself that is the Source of the Conflict, the problem is that both parties are being forced into a situation where a Contract is needed to begin with.

What is happening is that there are two opposing viewpoints, and they are being shoved into a situation where the outcome is either the Rights of one, or the other are going to get violated. People see the problem as coming from the two individuals who disagree, not the Situation itself that they have both been forced into. And who created the situation? The Govt, not the individuals.

Nothing baloney about it.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 06:17 PM
The other misconception here is that Contract Law supercedes Natural Rights.

And what natural right was violated here?

What I see is you advocating to remove the Church's right to determine who they employ and under what conditions.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 06:21 PM
And what natural right was violated here?

What I see is you advocating to remove the Church's right to determine who they employ and under what conditions.

Her body is NOT the Property of the Church. Ownership of ones self is a Natural Right.

The only thing I advocate here is to remove the Churches False Right to decide the conditions of employment based on the Scope of those Rights. They do not have a Right to all the property in the house of ANY employee, just as they do not have the Right of Ownership of her Vagina, Uterus, or what she does with them. Did she have sex on the job? Thats a different story. Not on the job? It exceeds their Rights. Im not trying to say the Church does not have any Rights what so ever.

Now if you really want a -Rep war, you got it.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 06:24 PM
Her body is NOT the Property of the Church. Ownership of ones self is a Natural Right.

And where did the Church claim ownership of her body?

Did the Church force her to work there? Did the Church force her to sign the contract? Did the Church use force to prevent her from getting pregnant?

If anything, it is you who is advocating that the Church's money is her property and advocating that the Church must employ her despite her violating a mutually agreed upon contract.

FindLiberty
02-06-2014, 06:25 PM
Got hired, got pregnant, got fired, case dismissed.

All four events are undeniable examples God's will (giving mankind free will), unless god does not really exist, then it's just free choice.

In any case, good luck to unemployed Mom and Baby, unless of course that baby is really the anti-Christ 'cause then I just have to say, "nasal on that".

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 06:26 PM
And where did the Church claim ownership of her body?

Did the Church force her to work there? Did the Church force her to sign the contract? Did the Church use force to prevent her from getting pregnant?

If anything, it is you who is advocating that the Church's money is her property and advocating that the Church must employ her despite her violating a mutually agreed upon contract.

Church claimed ownership through the Contract to something that does not belong to them.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 06:30 PM
Church claimed ownership through the Contract to something that does not belong to them.

All they claimed ownership of is their own money. She has no right to their money unless they consent to give it to her. She violated the terms under which she would be remunerated, and therefore they terminated the contract.

So let me get this straight, you believe that the Church should be forced to employ and pay someone who they do not want to employ and pay? You're saying that she has more of a claim to the Church's money than the Church itself? You're saying, that even if she breaks a contract, which she voluntarily signed, the Church should still be forced to employ her?

Ender
02-06-2014, 07:07 PM
It sure does have the Right to its beliefs. So do I. However, the Rights of the Church do NOT supercede the Rights of the Individual. The Rights of BOTH End where the Equal Rights of others begin. Again, problem here is the Govt. Take an Austrian Economist and a Keynsian Economist, lock them both in the same room and demand the only subject they can talk about is the Economy, and you are bound to have a conflict.

The other misconception here is that Contract Law supercedes Natural Rights. There are things that can be satisfied by both parties in a contract, and there are things that can NOT be satisfied in a contract. You work for me for X in wages. You do the work, you've earned those wages. You dont do the work, its a natural violation of contract. What I cant do in that Contract is take ownership of things that do not belong to me. You work for me and I'll give you something that does not belong to me, say for example, your neighbors car. Other things that would be excluded in the realm of Contract Law are things that are not involved in the consideration of satisfaction of the contract. While you work for me, I retain the Right (not actually a right, but agreement) to deduct wages if you do not Floss at home. Anything in your home is considered beyond the Scope of the Contract. As a result, there are many reasons why a Contract can be considered Invalid. Courts are used to uphold Contracts, but they are not always able to anything about the Source of the Conflict itself. It isnt the Contract itself that is the Source of the Conflict, the problem is that both parties are being forced into a situation where a Contract is needed to begin with.

What is happening is that there are two opposing viewpoints, and they are being shoved into a situation where the outcome is either the Rights of one, or the other are going to get violated. People see the problem as coming from the two individuals who disagree, not the Situation itself that they have both been forced into. And who created the situation? The Govt, not the individuals.

Nothing baloney about it.

Whoa, Dude- get over yourself here. I really respect you opinions but this has nothing to do with the church violating her natural rights.

They did NOT force her to have an abortion; they did NOT force her to be celibate.

You may do with your body what ever you choose, but I don't have to keep you employed if you decide to tattoo your entire face and then expect to meet with major CEOs in high powered business meetings. I don't have to keep you employed if I run a McDonalds and you scar up your face and cut off your nose and then expect to charm customers.

We are talking about a school here, where the leadership expects to help bring children to higher standards. If people deliberately break those standards, it effects everyone. The school is not obligated to keep her or anyone else that breaks any other standard.

This is called FREE ENTERPRISE and is supposed to be something this board stands for.

I get it that you hate the Catholic Church and you certainly have the right. BUT you do NOT have the right to take away theirs.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 07:16 PM
All they claimed ownership of is their own money. She has no right to their money unless they consent to give it to her. She violated the terms under which she would be remunerated, and therefore they terminated the contract.

So let me get this straight, you believe that the Church should be forced to employ and pay someone who they do not want to employ and pay? You're saying that she has more of a claim to the Church's money than the Church itself? You're saying, that even if she breaks a contract, which she voluntarily signed, the Church should still be forced to employ her?

Once a person gets paid, the person doing the paying does not get to decide what they do with that money. The recipient uses it to buy food, its not the Payers call. The Payee uses it to buy drugs or sex, also not the Payers call. This is from the Paycheck, not for money that comes from insurance.

The contract itself is Invalid because they can not enforce something that they do not own. They do not own her. If she gets pregnant, thats her business, not the Churches. Thus, they are trying to terminate her employment on something that exceeds the scope of the contract. You cant fire someone because they did something off work that the employer does not approve of. They went to the bar? Not valid grounds for termination. They have NO AUTHORITY outside of work what she does.

Now lets look at the Contract. They also most likely claimed to be able to change the Terms and Conditions of the contract any time they damn well want. This also nullifies the Contract. Voluntary agreement with an ever changing contract does not mean that the individual still agrees to all the terms. I havent read the contract itself, but its the same crap that Credit Card companies and Banks use constantly.

Its not Voluntary if the contract is coerced. The terms of her employment most like rested solely on the coersion of signing a contract that she did not agree with. They may have just as well put a gun to her head and say "sign this or die", then turn around and claim the Signature is Voluntary on her part. This would be a contract for Insurance, which would most likely be required, but it is also separate from a Contract of Employment.

The only way that these things that youre saying can all be true is if she has absolutely NO RIGHTS at all.

We dont have Freedom of Speech to protect the Popular Things to say, but to protect the Unpopular Things to say. We dont have Freedom of Religion to protect the Popular Religion, but the Unpopular as well. Thus, if she has a different set of beliefs, as unpopular as those beliefs may be, she still has an Enumerated Right to those beliefs. If she decides that she wants to get pregnant, thats up to her, not the Church or the Contract. And again Contracts can not supercede Natural Rights, especially those outside the scope of their Authority, and especially those that are agreed to under Duress or Coersion.

So let me ask you this. Who is it that is doing the Coercing and causing the Duress? Who would be the one saying "If you do not sign this, we will not employ you"? Is that not Coersion?

Nothing Voluntary about it.

From a different perspective, Mandatory Drug Tests as a condition of employment. Again, coersion.

---


...

I get it that you hate the Catholic Church and you certainly have the right. BUT you do NOT have the right to take away theirs.

I dont hate the church. But I definitely dont approve of some of their their actions when they cross lines that should not be crossed.

Briefly on Standards: Same thing as Public Schools. Their standards are those of Obedience by Abuse. Also not exactly a standard I think anyone should strive to achieve. Standards of Cooperation on the other hand I think are far more worthwhile goals.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 07:20 PM
Once a person gets paid, the person doing the paying does not get to decide what they do with that money. The recipient uses it to buy food, its not the Payers call. The Payee uses it to buy drugs or sex, also not the Payers call. This is from the Paycheck, not for money that comes from insurance.

The contract itself is Invalid because they can not enforce something that they do not own. They do not own her. If she gets pregnant, thats her business, not the Churches. Thus, they are trying to terminate her employment on something that exceeds the scope of the contract. You cant fire someone because they did something off work that the employer does not approve of. They went to the bar? Not valid grounds for termination. They have NO AUTHORITY outside of work what she does.

Now lets look at the Contract. They also most likely claimed to be able to change the Terms and Conditions of the contract any time they damn well want. This also nullifies the Contract. Voluntary agreement with an ever changing contract does not mean that the individual still agrees to all the terms. I havent read the contract itself, but its the same crap that Credit Card companies and Banks use constantly.

Its not Voluntary if the contract is coerced. The terms of her employment most like rested solely on the coersion of signing a contract that she did not agree with. They may have just as well put a gun to her head and say "sign this or die", then turn around and claim the Signature is Voluntary on her part. This would be a contract for Insurance, which would most likely be required, but it is also separate from a Contract of Employment.

The only way that these things that youre saying can all be true is if she has absolutely NO RIGHTS at all.

We dont have Freedom of Speech to protect the Popular Things to say, but to protect the Unpopular Things to say. We dont have Freedom of Religion to protect the Popular Religion, but the Unpopular as well. Thus, if she has a different set of beliefs, as unpopular as those beliefs may be, she still has an Enumerated Right to those beliefs. If she decides that she wants to get pregnant, thats up to her, not the Church or the Contract. And again Contracts can not supercede Natural Rights, especially those outside the scope of their Authority, and especially those that are agreed to under Duress or Coersion.

So let me ask you this. Who is it that is doing the Coercing and causing the Duress? Who would be the one saying "If you do not sign this, we will not employ you"? Is that not Coersion?

Nothing Voluntary about it.

From a different perspective, Mandatory Drug Tests as a condition of employment. Again, coersion.

Holy shit, this is so full of fail.

1) The Church has no duty to keep employing her, for any reason they want.
2) She has no claim to the Church's money
3) She has no right to employment.



Let me just ask you a few questions:

1) Who own's the Church's money?
2) Does the Church get to decide who they employ?
3) Did the Church force her to work there?
4) If the woman voluntarily signed the contract and breached it, does the Church have the right to terminate the contract?
5) Should the Church be forced to employ her?

jj-
02-06-2014, 07:48 PM
Church claimed ownership through the Contract to something that does not belong to them.

what an idiot

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 07:50 PM
Church own's yer virgin card?

jj-
02-06-2014, 07:53 PM
DamianTV is an authoritarian who wants to impose the contract conditions he likes to third parties.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 07:54 PM
Holy shit, this is so full of fail.

1) The Church has no duty to keep employing her, for any reason they want.
2) She has no claim to the Church's money
3) She has no right to employment.



Let me just ask you a few questions:

1) Who own's the Church's money?
2) Does the Church get to decide who they employ?
3) Did the Church force her to work there?
4) If the woman voluntarily signed the contract and breached it, does the Church have the right to terminate the contract?
5) Should the Church be forced to employ her?

Truly, I couldnt ask you to do any better than you already are. What youre showing is just how little you value the Rights of the Individual when they get into a conflict with any Employer. Doesnt matter if the Employer is a Church, Walmarx, a Mom and Pop grocery store, or a Mega Corporation. The views you express show that Employers have ALL rights and Employees are flat out disposable and have zero Rights what so ever. However, the views are even more supportive if the Employer is a Church.

So lets try to reply to your statements.

1) Church Duty to Employ: Sure, they can get rid of her for any reason they want. Might as well fire her if she is too ugly or gets fat too.
2) Claim to Churches Money: Again, Contract. Did she fulfill her end of the contract? Did she work? Was she justly compensated for the work? Then she deserves that money from the Church only for the work she provided. Trying to go Retroactive (which doesnt appear to be the case) and saying "we want our money back from the time you got pregnant" cant be valid because she still worked. Additional Money needs for her to provide the labor. Then and only then is she Entitled to what she has earned.
3) Right to Employment: Correct. Contract. Both parties have to agree.

Response to Questions:

1) Churches Money: Church owns money until they agree to pay a certain quantity of money for a product or service. Obvious. However, they do not get to keep all of that money if it is owed to someone else as a term or condition to which they agreed and product / service was provided. Mow my lawn doesnt mean I cant not pay you.
2) Decision of who works for the Church: They get to choose from people that are willing to agree. They cant force employment on someone that does not agree.
3) Forced to Work: Nope, but the Contract goes both ways. The Employee has to hold up their end of the bargain, but the Church does not.
4) Forced to Employ: Yes. If they already agreed, and the conditions of termination of employment are considered to be Unfair. Might as well extend this to say "You cant marry a Jew or a Muslim", but again, it exceeds their Scope of Authority. Now rewind to before the agreement was made, either party could have said "no, I dont agree". Further examination gets into the specific wording of the contract itself and specific parts of the contract. There will be several parts, and several parts of the contract can not be considered valid, while others will remain valid. Work for Pay clause is most likely upheld and both parties filled the contract. All your vagina are belong to us exceeds their Authority and is obtained under Duress and Coersion that enables Abuse. Kind of like a Cell Phone contract. You are forced to agree to things that you do not like at all, but out of a need for communication, the need outweighs the want, and that also enables Abuse. Cancel your contract with a cell carrier early and they fine the living hell out of a person. Its abuse, plain and simple. Do people there really have a choice? When its an employment contract, the choice is between eating and not eating.

Please keep going. Please. You are succeeding in showing your true character. Supportive of Authority, No Individual Rights, No Balance of Rights, and a complete and total lack of intention to fully resolve a situation. Your loyalty is strong, and it to the Church instead of Peace. And I do have a feeling that if a Church demanded you to do something that even you considered to be Immoral, you would obey that order regardless of your conscience. In the Stanley Milgram Authority test, I suspect you would be the person that continues to press the button that harms the person that answers questions wrong. I really hope Im wrong on that, but youre not inspiring much confidence in me that you wouldnt.

So by all means, please keep trying to only defend the Church as the picture youre painting of yourself is a Masterpiece of Oppressive Employment, not mutual Cooperation or Equal Rights.

jj-
02-06-2014, 07:55 PM
Under Damian's reasoning, part of the contract cannot include that the teacher has to write on the chalkboard. That would make it an invalid contract because the Church doesn't own her hand! Can't claim ownership to a part of her body!

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:01 PM
Who would be the one saying "If you do not sign this, we will not employ you"? Is that not Coersion?

Nothing Voluntary about it.


HAHAHA. To support his leftist authoritarian, freedom of contract violating policies, damian is now changing the meaning of coercion. Anyone who asks you to sign a contract before agreeing to hire you is coercing you! What a loon.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 08:03 PM
HAHAHA. To support his leftist authoritarian, freedom of contract violating policies, damian is now changing the meaning of coercion. Anyone who asks you to sign a contract before agreeing to hire you is coercing you! What a loon.

Yes, voluntarily signing a contract is coercion. If you don't meet the requirements you voluntarily pledged to meet, it's the other party that has to continue paying you!!!

I agree, Damian is an authoritarian leftist.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 08:05 PM
Church claimed ownership through the Contract to something that does not belong to them.


what an idiot

Im an idiot? Okay, then lets try this. I'll give you a bunch of money and you can give me your neighbors car, even if you dont own your neighbors car.




DamianTV is an authoritarian who wants to impose the contract conditions he likes to third parties.

I am?

The only real solution I see is for Less Govt. No Govt mandates on employers to provide Health Insurance. Eliminates the source of conflicts and simplifies things greatly. The less that two opposing parties are pushed into situations, the more they have the ability to resolve the conflicts in a way that doest cause either party problems. The simplicity is that the contract does not become overly complicated with abusive terms by either party. Teach the kids and we'll pay you. Then she can get her own health insurance. Disputes over health insurance payments still pretty much allow the option of her dumping / changing the insurance without sacrificing her employment.

I dont see that as authoritarian at all.

erowe1
02-06-2014, 08:05 PM
Once a person gets paid, the person doing the paying does not get to decide what they do with that money. The recipient uses it to buy food, its not the Payers call. The Payee uses it to buy drugs or sex, also not the Payers call. This is from the Paycheck, not for money that comes from insurance.

The contract itself is Invalid because they can not enforce something that they do not own. They do not own her. If she gets pregnant, thats her business, not the Churches. Thus, they are trying to terminate her employment on something that exceeds the scope of the contract. You cant fire someone because they did something off work that the employer does not approve of. They went to the bar? Not valid grounds for termination. They have NO AUTHORITY outside of work what she does.

Now lets look at the Contract. They also most likely claimed to be able to change the Terms and Conditions of the contract any time they damn well want. This also nullifies the Contract. Voluntary agreement with an ever changing contract does not mean that the individual still agrees to all the terms. I havent read the contract itself, but its the same crap that Credit Card companies and Banks use constantly.

Its not Voluntary if the contract is coerced. The terms of her employment most like rested solely on the coersion of signing a contract that she did not agree with. They may have just as well put a gun to her head and say "sign this or die", then turn around and claim the Signature is Voluntary on her part. This would be a contract for Insurance, which would most likely be required, but it is also separate from a Contract of Employment.

The only way that these things that youre saying can all be true is if she has absolutely NO RIGHTS at all.

We dont have Freedom of Speech to protect the Popular Things to say, but to protect the Unpopular Things to say. We dont have Freedom of Religion to protect the Popular Religion, but the Unpopular as well. Thus, if she has a different set of beliefs, as unpopular as those beliefs may be, she still has an Enumerated Right to those beliefs. If she decides that she wants to get pregnant, thats up to her, not the Church or the Contract. And again Contracts can not supercede Natural Rights, especially those outside the scope of their Authority, and especially those that are agreed to under Duress or Coersion.

So let me ask you this. Who is it that is doing the Coercing and causing the Duress? Who would be the one saying "If you do not sign this, we will not employ you"? Is that not Coersion?

Nothing Voluntary about it.

From a different perspective, Mandatory Drug Tests as a condition of employment. Again, coersion.

---



I dont hate the church. But I definitely dont approve of some of their their actions when they cross lines that should not be crossed.

Briefly on Standards: Same thing as Public Schools. Their standards are those of Obedience by Abuse. Also not exactly a standard I think anyone should strive to achieve. Standards of Cooperation on the other hand I think are far more worthwhile goals.

This post reveals the utter hypocrisy of everything you have said in this thread.

You first tried to say that the OP is evidence that the Catholic Church would try to impose its will on non consenting people via the state.

And now, as it turns out, you are far worse than the thing you condemned.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 08:10 PM
Church claimed ownership through the Contract to something that does not belong to them.


This post reveals the utter hypocrisy of everything you have said in this thread.

You first tried to say that the OP is evidence that the Catholic Church would try to impose its will on non consenting people via the state.

And now, as it turns out, you are far worse than the thing you condemned.

If given the opportunity, the Church would replace the State with its own laws. Just as our Govt has learned to respect No Limits, the Church would do the same. Was it not the Church that supported the MURDER of people for those that disobeyed their Doctrines for lesser crimes, then says "thou shall not kill"? And people wonder why I have no confidence in the Morality of the Church?

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:10 PM
If you sign a contract with conditions DamianTV doesn't like, then your contract was signed under duress.

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:12 PM
If given the opportunity, the Church would replace the State with its own laws.

If given the opportunity, you would eliminate freedom of contract. You would eliminate freedom of contract and replace it with you own preferences. So I won't bother to listen you complain about who might or might not impose their will on others, because that's what YOU are proposing.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 08:15 PM
If given the opportunity, you would eliminate freedom of contract. You would eliminate freedom of contract and replace it with you own preferences. So I won't bother to listen you complain about who might or might not impose their will on others, because that's what YOU are proposing.

Exactly, his accusations are nothing but fantasies of what might or might not happen.

However, what he's advocating for is the elimination of the freedom to contract, as well as the right to free association, as well as the right to keep your own money.

erowe1
02-06-2014, 08:19 PM
If given the opportunity, the Church would replace the State with its own laws. Just as our Govt has learned to respect No Limits, the Church would do the same. Was it not the Church that supported the MURDER of people for those that disobeyed their Doctrines for lesser crimes, then says "thou shall not kill"? And people wonder why I have no confidence in the Morality of the Church?

You've already showed your cards. What you're doing here is what they call "projecting."

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:19 PM
So if you are a director for a movie, and want an actress whose character is not supposed to be pregnant, then if she breaks the contract and gets pregnant, you must make the movie anyway because it's her body? The contract was signed under duress and abuse?

If you want a lean character, and your actor gets fat, you must make the movie anyway? Otherwise the agreement was done under duress and abuse?

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 08:21 PM
So if you are a director for a movie, and want an actress whose character is not supposed to be pregnant, then if she breaks the contract and gets pregnant, you must make the movie anyway because it's her body?

Yes, and if you do not keep employing her then you are claiming ownership of her body.

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 08:26 PM
Obviously, Hollywood directors want to impose their morality on us.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 08:28 PM
Then what do you think is the Reasonable Solution to this?

Fire everyone that gets pregnant? Make everybody a Catholic / Buddhist / Muslim as a term of employment? Is the Reasonable Solution to have MORE Govt intervention? Is it Reasonable to look at the responsibilities of both parties? Why does one party get Unlimited Rights and the other has No Rights to themselves at all? Is there no Balance? Why do we even need Rights if the limits of those Rights are not going to apparently be respected by either party? Whats the difference between Contract and a Right?

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:31 PM
Then what do you think is the Reasonable Solution to this?

Fire everyone that gets pregnant? Make everybody a Catholic / Buddhist / Muslim as a term of employment? Is the Reasonable Solution to have MORE Govt intervention? Is it Reasonable to look at the responsibilities of both parties? Why does one party get Unlimited Rights and the other has No Rights to themselves at all? Is there no Balance? Why do we even need Rights if the limits of those Rights are not going to apparently be respected by either party? Whats the difference between Contract and a Right?

[mod delete]. One, you can work somewhere else. Not all schools are Catholic. If there ever were a situation where ALL schools were Catholic, everyone who wanted to get pregnant before marriage while teaching could put their resources together and form their own school. If nobody would attend, they could even send their own out-of-wedlock children there as students. Problem solved. Balance.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 08:35 PM
[mod delete]. One, you can work somewhere else. Not all schools are Catholic. If there ever were a situation where ALL schools were Catholic, everyone who wanted to get pregnant before marriage while teaching could put their resources together and form their own school. If nobody would attend, they could even send their own out-of-wedlock children there as students. Problem solved. Balance.

It seems that some are more equal than others.

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:36 PM
DamianTV's statements are so nonsensical that he must either have mental issues or other problems of his own he doesn't want to face so he hates the Church and freedom of contract instead.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 08:36 PM
Then what do you think is the Reasonable Solution to this?

How about allowing people to voluntarily enter into contracts and if they do not meet their end of the deal for the other party to be able to void the contract?

In other words, exactly what happened here.


Fire everyone that gets pregnant?

If they sign a contract saying that they will not get pregnant out of wedlock, then yes, the employer has every right to fire them.


Make everybody a Catholic / Buddhist / Muslim as a term of employment?

I don't see how this applies. Catholic schools hire people of any religion, as long as they stick to the terms of employment which they voluntarily accept to abide by.


Is the Reasonable Solution to have MORE Govt intervention?

I don't see where anyone but you (indirectly) has advocated for this.


Is it Reasonable to look at the responsibilities of both parties?

Yes. The Catholic school held to it's responsibilities within the contract, namely paying her. She is the one who did not live up to her responsibilities.


Why does one party get Unlimited Rights and the other has No Rights to themselves at all? Is there no Balance?

No one had their rights violated. But you sure are advocating for the school's right to contract being limited.


Why do we even need Rights if the limits of those Rights are not going to apparently be respected by either party?

Again, which right was violated here?


Whats the difference between Contract and a Right?

A contract is a voluntary agreement between two parties. A right is a moral and legal principle of freedom.

Barrex
02-06-2014, 08:40 PM
So basically if you sin than you're fired?

Maybe you miss Church? Or you dare work on a Sunday? Fired?
You are right. There should be a law listing exceptions when employers are allowed to fire their employees. Once someone is employed he should keep his job forever. If I am retarded enough to employ someone I must keep him employed forever (or until I die)... no matter what.

Now if you really want a -Rep war, you got it.
Can we start - rep war too? I always wanted to get 100 - reps in a row... was curious what color my rep bar will be then.

Church claimed ownership through the Contract to something that does not belong to them.

Firing person for any reason = slavery (taking ownership over someone).
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md55jkAL4R1ryr815o1_500.gif


P.s.

Funny. I thought that people are being sarcastic but they are serious.... Now it is funny and scary too.

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:44 PM
I don't think even at the Daily Kos they would say that if you want a thin actress for a thin movie character, you must make the movie anyway if she breaks the contract and gets pregnant. I don't think even the biggest leftist idiot would say that you claimed ownership of her body because of a pregnancy clause.

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 08:46 PM
I'm not totally clear on DamianTV's solutions, but I do think he is pointing out a valid problem.

It seems to me that most people want Government out of the bedroom right? But do many of the same people very casually accepting that private entities, religious or corporate, can dictate areas of employee's personal live?

The counter argument is we have a choice on whether to sign a contract. Well... if one company or church sets frivolous "Moral Clauses" into everything and it because a trend, you basically get stuck refusing to sign anything and have a limited ability to participate in society.

It's a very grey area between having real choice or the illusion of choice. Such our presidential elections often feel to me like an illusion of choice as I two horrible options served up to me while reminded by the media of how great American Democracy is.

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:49 PM
I'm not totally clear on DamianTV's solutions, but I do think he is pointing out a valid problem.

It seems to me that most people want Government out of the bedroom right? But do many of the same people very casually accepting that private entities, religious or corporate, can dictate areas of employee's personal live?

The counter argument is we have a choice on whether to sign a contract. Well... if one company or church sets frivolous "Moral Clauses" into everything and it because a trend, you basically get stuck refusing to sign anything and have a limited ability to participate in society.

It's a very grey area between having real choice or the illusion of choice. Such our presidential elections often feel to me like an illusion of choice as I two horrible options served up to me while reminded by the media of how great American Democracy is.

So you don't think employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason or no reason? You don't think employees should be able to quit for any reason or no reason? You think people should associate with others against their will, once they decide they no longer want to?

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 08:51 PM
You are right. There should be a law listing exceptions when employers are allowed to fire their employees. Once someone is employed he should keep his job forever. If I am retarded enough to employ someone I must keep him employed forever (or until I die)... no matter what.



Exaggerating much....

I'd say you can fire someone if you have a good reason. I just don't think an employee becoming pregnant is a good reason.

Also, I don't think the force of government is needed here, unless it can be determined that the contract demands terms that are illegal. I doubt that could be successfully argued.

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 08:52 PM
I'd say you can fire someone if you have a good reason.

And who determines what a good reason is?

eduardo89
02-06-2014, 08:53 PM
I'd say you can fire someone if you have a good reason.

And who determines what a good reason is?

jj-
02-06-2014, 08:53 PM
I'd say you can fire someone if you have a good reason. I just don't think an employee becoming pregnant is a good reason.

Does that apply to an actress who is supposed to perform as a thin character for a movie? If she breaks the contract and gets pregnant, the movie must be made anyway, even if she no longer fits the character?

Barrex
02-06-2014, 08:58 PM
I'm not totally clear on DamianTV's solutions, but I do think he is pointing out a valid problem.

It seems to me that most people want Government out of the bedroom right? But do many of the same people very casually accepting that private entities, religious or corporate, can dictate areas of employee's personal live?

The counter argument is we have a choice on whether to sign a contract. Well... if one company or church sets frivolous "Moral Clauses" into everything and it because a trend, you basically get stuck refusing to sign anything and have a limited ability to participate in society.

It's a very grey area between having real choice or the illusion of choice. Such our presidential elections often feel to me like an illusion of choice as I two horrible options served up to me while reminded by the media of how great American Democracy is.

Exaggerating much....

I'd say you can fire someone if you have a good reason. I just don't think an employee becoming pregnant is a good reason.

Also, I don't think the force of government is needed here, unless it can be determined that the contract demands terms that are illegal. I doubt that could be successfully argued.

Lets play a game called "only logical end":
First car= LAW: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FIRE PEOPLE FOR x REASON
Second car= LAW 2: YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FIRE PEOPLE FOR y REASON
and so it starts
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2525771/blues-brothers-pileup-o.gif

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 09:02 PM
So you don't think employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason or no reason? You don't think employees should be able to quit for any reason or no reason? You think people should associate with others against their will, once they decide they no longer want to?

If I think an employer fired someone for a stupid reason, I will call them a Stupid Boss. They have their opinion and I have mine. Just using my freedom of speech since I have not signed that right over to an employer.

I do think DamianTV is onto something with his arguments, but it's in an interesting grey area. Suppose a contract existed with terms that violate the Constitution and a worker's rights? For example, a long unemployed person finally gets a job and reluctantly signs reams of paperwork to gain employment.

Than the employer says that the papers signed have a Contractual agreement that the employee must give up their Facebook Password. Is this okay? Does a Contract allow an employer to transfer away the person's human right to privacy? Could an employer ask for their house keys next? Or put in a clause saying the boss needs a copy of their keys in case they need to borrow the employee's car?

I'm 50/50 DamianTV on this. I do think DamianTV is bringing up a valid issue, but I'm undecided. It's an interesting argument.

Victor Grey
02-06-2014, 09:04 PM
You cant fire someone because they did something off work that the employer does not approve of. They went to the bar? Not valid grounds for termination. They have NO AUTHORITY outside of work what she does.

I would agree with someone, if they said that jobs requiring such, far reaching stipulations in their employment contracts should, generally, be avoided like a terrifying plague.

That, is another layer of moral argument entirely however, that doesn't have to conflict with a consistent respect for contract. Nor for recognizing the intents behind an employer for requiring certain behaviors for those filling certain positions.

I would accept and take the position, that generally, reducing annoying or intrusive contract stipulations by people rejecting jobs having them, is yes overall a good for society in most cases. It doesn't mean however that contract stipulations are aggression, or coercion.

I wish that was all you were saying.


The terms of her employment most like rested solely on the coersion of signing a contract that she did not agree with. They may have just as well put a gun to her head and say "sign this or die", then turn around and claim the Signature is Voluntary on her part. This would be a contract for Insurance, which would most likely be required, but it is also separate from a Contract of Employment.

This is bone flipping nuts to me, man.

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 09:04 PM
Barrex.... I just stated I don't think the force of government was needed.

jj-
02-06-2014, 09:05 PM
Than the employer says that the papers signed have a Contractual agreement that the employee must give up their Facebook Password. Is this okay? Does a Contract allow an employer to transfer away the person's human right to privacy? Could an employer ask for their house keys next? Or put in a clause saying the boss needs a copy of their keys in case they need to borrow the employee's car?

If you are hired as an actor for a romantic movie and you're asked to agree to kiss the female character, does a company have a right to deny you YOUR HUMAN RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO NOT TO KISS?

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 09:08 PM
I don't think even at the Daily Kos they would say that if you want a thin actress for a thin movie character, you must make the movie anyway if she breaks the contract and gets pregnant. I don't think even the biggest leftist idiot would say that you claimed ownership of her body because of a pregnancy clause.

Scope of the Agreement.

What happens at work, the employer gets full control over.
What happens at home, the employer gets no control over.

Thats pretty much been the point all along. Get both Govt and Employer out of the Employees Bedroom. Pregnancy itself is not illegal. Nor is sex out of wedlock. But much like Pot being very easy to test for, pregnancy is just about obvious. Men dont get fired for sex nearly as much because there is much less obvious evidence without the invasion of privacy, but this assumes the mans parter is also concenting.

New Contracts vs Standardized Contracts: Rental agreements are usually standardized. Renter agrees to pay and gets a place to live. Occasionally renegotiated for conditions like Pets. Employment contracts are typically defined by each employer, but there isnt a lot of negotiation going on to alter the contract itself. Its either all or nothing. Movie contracts are typically drawn up and negotiated before being agreed to. It gives both parties reasonable limits by defining what those limits are. Like dont get a tattoo on an actors face in the middle of the film. Pregnancy is not always an obvious bulge in a womans stomach until later in the pregnancy.

I think the way Videodrome said it was better than I am explaining. "A limited ability to participate in society" without agreeing to a contract, and perspective employees are not considered for employment at all if the employee attempts to renegotiate the contract itself are made. Agree, or find someplace else. There isnt always a "someplace else".

Clearest solution I can think of is to encourage Negotiation, not Obedience.

jj-
02-06-2014, 09:09 PM
Than the employer says that the papers signed have a Contractual agreement that the employee must give up their Facebook Password. Is this okay? Does a Contract allow an employer to transfer away the person's human right to privacy? Could an employer ask for their house keys next? Or put in a clause saying the boss needs a copy of their keys in case they need to borrow the employee's car?

Things like that are more likely to happen when there are few jobs available. The solution is to make more jobs available by stopping the government from destroying jobs, by minimum wage laws, for example, which destroy jobs for the least skilled. The solution is not to attack freedom of contract and freedom of association. That makes things worse and distracts from the true cause of few jobs: government interference in the economy.

jj-
02-06-2014, 09:12 PM
What happens at work, the employer gets full control over.
What happens at home, the employer gets no control over.

The problem is that those are related. An actress not looking thin for her character in a movie is something that happens at work, even if she got pregnant at home.

I don't think I have ever read so many stupid things in just one day. Congrats.

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 09:18 PM
If you are hired as an actor for a romantic movie and you're asked to agree to kiss the female character, does a company have a right to deny you YOUR HUMAN RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHO NOT TO KISS?

The interesting thing about that is that is directly a part of that job.

Maybe what irks me is contract terms controlling parts of a person's life that have nothing to do with the job at all.

What if a Hollywood Liberal Director said that as a part of the contract, everyone on his crew must vote for a Democrat? If he finds out they did otherwise, they're fired. That would be nonsense and wrong.

Again though, do I have a choice on whether or not to sign the pile of Legalese paperwork so I can act in a movie and get paid? Or choose not to sign it and not to work. Hmmm.. Keep my Human Right and go broke, or sellout my Human Rights and get paid. Sounds like a lousy deal.

Is the might of the Federal government the solution? Well..... that is the question and honestly I'm still thinking about it. I dislike the abuse of contract power, but going to the Federal Government is like trying to hang up a picture with a sledgehammer. They are powerful but clumsy and inept solving most problems.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 09:18 PM
Things like that are more likely to happen when there are few jobs available. The solution is to make more jobs available by stopping the government from destroying jobs, by minimum wage laws, for example, which destroy jobs for the least skilled. The solution is not to attack freedom of contract and freedom of association. That makes things worse and distracts for the true cause of low jobs: government interference in the economy.

This I fully agree with. There are things we can completely agree on.


The problem is that those are related. An actress not looking thin for his character as a movie is something that happens at work, even if she got pregnant at home.

I don't think I have ever read so many stupid things in just one day. Congrats.

I see nothing stupid about limiting what an Employer can know about an Employee. This kind of derails by going on the topic of Privacy. Privacy isnt about Right or Wrong, its about a difference of opinion becoming a source of conflict. There are limitations as to what an employee can know about an employer (trade secrets for example), and there are limitations about what an employer can know about an employee (most things outside of work).

jj-
02-06-2014, 09:20 PM
The interesting thing about that is that is directly a part of that job.

Then they could hire them for 2 jobs. Teachers and non-pregnant movie actresses, for a movie made by the school. If you lose one job, you lose the other. You can't have just one as part of the contract. Problem solved, no pregnant teacher.

jj-
02-06-2014, 09:22 PM
This I fully agree with. There are things we can completely agree on.

Bullshit, you don't agree. Because you don't agree with freedom of association and freedom of contract you attack both.

jj-
02-06-2014, 09:25 PM
The interesting thing about that is that is directly a part of that job.

A parent might argue that part of the job of giving a good education is giving a good example in not getting pregnant before marriage. So you're attacking not only freedom of association and freedom of contract, but also the freedom of parents to choose the educational standards and practices for their children.

DamianTV
02-06-2014, 09:26 PM
Bullshit, you don't agree. Because you don't agree with freedom of association and freedom of contract you attack both.

Now youre just putting words in my mouth and looking for conflict, even when I try to agree on the earlier solution. Govt does destroy jobs and causes the conflicts.

GunnyFreedom
02-06-2014, 09:58 PM
Scope of the Agreement.

What happens at work, the employer gets full control over.
What happens at home, the employer gets no control over.



Pretty sure she's still going to be pregnant when she goes to work though.

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 10:21 PM
A parent might argue that part of the job of giving a good education is giving a good example in not getting pregnant before marriage. So you're attacking not only freedom of association and freedom of contract, but also the freedom of parents to choose the educational standards and practices for their children.

Wait-a-minute. I'm mostly just voicing my opinion with my Freedom of Speech which fortunately isn't restricted by a contract with an employer. And yes a parent could make an argument about setting an example. Just as I am making a counter argument.

Also, it might be worth considering that one of the parents could agree with me. They would be a dissenting voice, but not a threat to freedom of association or really even the ability to make contracts. Just a concerned citizen having a serious discussion about the matter with other parents. Maybe they even know the teacher personally and sympathize with them.


Yes, I'll admit I'm giving serious thought on going to the next level and including some kind of legal check against abuse of the contract power. At the same time, I also have serious reservations about the Federal Government coming to help. Basically, I'm still thinking about it, but I also think DamienTV is making a valid case that shouldn't be dismissed so quickly. I agree with his concerns, I am undecided on his solutions.

angelatc
02-06-2014, 10:32 PM
Now youre just putting words in my mouth and looking for conflict, even when I try to agree on the earlier solution. Govt does destroy jobs and causes the conflicts.

The solution is to keep the government out of it. People don't need the government to protect them from employers for heavens sakes!

VIDEODROME
02-06-2014, 11:05 PM
Well.... some can form Labor Unions and at least negotiate while backed by strenght in numbers. It's more awkward for individuals or low staff companies.

Ender
02-06-2014, 11:09 PM
I'm not totally clear on DamianTV's solutions, but I do think he is pointing out a valid problem.

It seems to me that most people want Government out of the bedroom right? But do many of the same people very casually accepting that private entities, religious or corporate, can dictate areas of employee's personal live?

The counter argument is we have a choice on whether to sign a contract. Well... if one company or church sets frivolous "Moral Clauses" into everything and it because a trend, you basically get stuck refusing to sign anything and have a limited ability to participate in society.

It's a very grey area between having real choice or the illusion of choice. Such our presidential elections often feel to me like an illusion of choice as I two horrible options served up to me while reminded by the media of how great American Democracy is.

When you bring your personal life into a job situation that is inappropriate, your boss has every right to fire you. As a person, you have the freedom in your private life to do what you want. As a boss, I have the freedom to fire you if your personal actions affect the job/work/results.


The counter argument is we have a choice on whether to sign a contract. Well... if one company or church sets frivolous "Moral Clauses" into everything and it because a trend, you basically get stuck refusing to sign anything and have a limited ability to participate in society.

Excuse me? What planet do you live on? You are comparing a church's religious code and freedom to practice that code as frivolous "Moral Clauses" and a trend?

You can't participate in society because of not signing a contract limiting how you want to live your life?

The counter argument is absolutely that we have a choice on whether to sign a contract. Time to grow up and take some responsibility for your own actions is my POV.

Nirvikalpa
02-06-2014, 11:34 PM
What a joke. Fire a teacher who is pregnant outside of wedlock despite her being an "excellent teacher," but throw millions away protecting the identities of child molesters while Catholic schools are closing at alarming rates all across America. Yep, they have their heads on straight.

So laughable. A pregnant teacher is the worst of their problems? Haha. Catholics are responsible for their own demise, and I can not wait until it happens. The pope can't utter a word without having some members shit their pants.

- ex-Catholic.

Weston White
02-07-2014, 12:15 AM
And “the sacrament of marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman” has bearing upon pregnancy how exactly? And what about pregnancies through IVF, molestation, or rape, are those grounds for termination as well?

Moreover, how is it Catholic to cast somebody out or damn them because of their participating in natural human interactions or experiencing the personal joys of life? This I think is exactly the core problem with the continuing religious hypocrisy of churches, i.e., we shalt overlook pedophilia involving our clergy, but dare a woman raise a bastard child, be herself cursed! Is that really what religious teaching are all about? Please now.

Why do people so respect an institution that is so misogynistic and deadpan towards females, while coveting pederasty?

Unless the teacher took a vow of celibacy or chastity (such as the obligations of a nun) I don’t see the school having much of a case against the teacher. With exception to working under qualified government contracts, one’s natural rights cannot be nullified even if agreed upon.


ETA: To include the church's: (1) history of corruption that the Vatican was literally built upon; (2) its dismissal of Magdalene as a figure of authority; (3) its historical betrayal and mischaracterization of those wise such as Hypatia and Galileo; (4) its covert repudiation of many child saints that lost their lives long ago to occult holocaust practices; (5) that a pope had recently just renounced his divinely ordained position; and (6) its dismisal of the recent discovery of the Gospel of Judas which presents a vastly different story than one of mere betrayal against Christ—perhaps even being the first Vicar of Christ.

angelatc
02-07-2014, 12:17 AM
Wow - the hate is strong against the Catholics. No respect for the beliefs of others, no private property rights.

Just open hate.

This liberty movement thing is just about done.

angelatc
02-07-2014, 12:21 AM
Well.... some can form Labor Unions and at least negotiate while backed by strenght in numbers. It's more awkward for individuals or low staff companies.

Yes by all means - lets also advocate for labor unions. And higher taxes.

Weston White
02-07-2014, 02:29 AM
The only thing wrong with this article is her plans to take legal action. Not only did she have a contract that she should respect, but also a Catholic school is just not going to be OK with an out-of-wedlock mother as a role model for their students.

Let’s be realistic now, how many of the male staff there had “sowed their wild oats”? The only real difference here is that they never have to worry about carrying around the evidence of their “misdeeds” for 9-months thereafter… Though perhaps it would be illuminating to learn how many men there are divorced, have gone through marital counseling for infidelity, or are quietly paying out one form of family support or another.

Single parenthood and broken families are a part of everyday life; definitely it would be a nice realization for her students to acknowledge early on, which most probably already do, at least those with access to cable television.

She is there being paid to teach specific course materials to children, not to emulate Mother Teresa; a matter that her status as a single mother has no direct correlation. Whether she is viewed as a role model by her students is a choice that only they can determine, perhaps for some her pregnancy will garnish her more respect or admiration and for others not so much.

To postulate that her becoming a single mother has morphed her into an unworthy teacher is insane.

Weston White
02-07-2014, 02:50 AM
She violated the terms of the contract that she signed onto.

1. That is extraordinarily vague language (ambiguous) and cannot possibly be enforceable.

2. A business agreement cannot serve to negate another’s reasonable adult choices (though there could be stipulations that involve employer losses as a result, such as having to delay production of a movie, promotional tour, or photo shoot due to the resulting change in physical appearance, etc.)

3. The portion quoted by the article leans more in context to a concern over same sex partners than single parenthood.

4. If that be the case, then they likely all need to be fired, because I am sure every single employee there violates those very teachings on a daily basis. For example, it is highly doubtful that any of them give proper tithe to the church, i.e., 10% of their income annually. And exactly, how many of those in need have any of them helped out recently? Probably not too many, I would bet.

Mani
02-07-2014, 03:09 AM
What if this were a story about Sikh school firing a teacher for cutting his hair?

Would that be newsworthy?

Very interesting question. I think a Sikh school would be very very disappointed in the teacher, but would accept them back and not actually fire them, given the case that he/she is considered, "an EXCELLENT teacher."

At least that's been my experience in watching how traditional Sikhs react to a prominent member of the Sikh community who cuts their hair. Shock, disappointment, and then normal acceptance in the community.

Weston White
02-07-2014, 05:16 AM
In response to several posts on pp. 2-3, I would like to further add:

Of course the "church's right to determine who they employ and under what conditions" exists, simply in-following logical reasoning and never superseding the social expectations of any individual, regardless if they happen to be their employee or not.

The natural law that is in play is the right to motherhood, childbirth, and family.

Unless she was actually being paid specifically to remain childless or to forgo pregnancy as a condition of her employment, so far that such was an actual function or requirement of her expected job performance, then terminating her for pregnancy alone (regardless of her martial status) would be gravely inappropriate. Additionally, such a termination could in addition to state specific laws be a federal violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act:

“… not hiring or firing her because she is pregnant is against the law. It’s against the law to dock her pay or demote her to a lesser position because of pregnancy. It’s also against the law to hold back benefits for pregnancy because a woman is not married. . . . employees must treat women who are pregnant in the same manner as other job applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.”
See: http://womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/know-your-rights.html

Generally, employers may only fire an individual for valid cause (e.g., embezzlement, failure to perform, insubordination, layoffs, etc.), in the prior example of an employee with an odd face tattoo within a business environment, yes that could be absolutely construed as shockingly inappropriate and not conducive to fostering professionalism in the workplace, ultimately resulting in intimidating, offending, or losing potential clients or business partners; while alternatively such a termination would likely lack cause if that same individual were working in a tattoo parlor. While perhaps a lopped off nose could be thought of as a handicap and thus might be appropriately protected as an excluded cause for termination by public law.

And to state that terminating a pregnant teacher is valid because of the fundamental teachings or marital expectations of a religious institution is severely lacking in its reasoning (such as in the other example of the discovery of an employee who married a Muslim spouse.) Especially being that single mothers are a social normal all throughout the United States of America, while on the other hand Puritanism and stoning or burning women at the stake is no longer so.

Seriously, I cannot believe the anarchist, supposedly “libertarian” types on this forum. They all appear to be so vastly pro-institution, blissfully praying in bloodlust at the altar of Big-box Internationally Incorporated, and being otherwise vehemently anti-government and anti-individual.

erowe1
02-07-2014, 05:21 AM
I see nothing stupid about limiting what an Employer can know about an Employee.

You see nothing stupid about who limiting it?

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:53 AM
What a joke. Fire a teacher who is pregnant outside of wedlock despite her being an "excellent teacher," but throw millions away protecting the identities of child molesters while Catholic schools are closing at alarming rates all across America. Yep, they have their heads on straight.

So laughable. A pregnant teacher is the worst of their problems? Haha. Catholics are responsible for their own demise, and I can not wait until it happens. The pope can't utter a word without having some members shit their pants.

- ex-Catholic.

Not surprising to see you write this crap.

Weston White
02-07-2014, 06:00 AM
If given the opportunity, the Church would replace the State with its own laws. Just as our Govt has learned to respect No Limits, the Church would do the same. Was it not the Church that supported the MURDER of people for those that disobeyed their Doctrines for lesser crimes, then says "thou shall not kill"? And people wonder why I have no confidence in the Morality of the Church?

Recall it already had, at least until Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment finally arrived. "The distance between the throne and the altar can never be too great." -- Denis Diderot

tod evans
02-07-2014, 06:11 AM
Leaving the Church out of the discussion;

At what point does the business owner lose the ability to fire an employee for any reason they choose?

At what point does he have to hire those he doesn't want to?

erowe1
02-07-2014, 07:29 AM
What a joke. Fire a teacher who is pregnant outside of wedlock despite her being an "excellent teacher," but throw millions away protecting the identities of child molesters while Catholic schools are closing at alarming rates all across America. Yep, they have their heads on straight.

So laughable. A pregnant teacher is the worst of their problems? Haha. Catholics are responsible for their own demise, and I can not wait until it happens. The pope can't utter a word without having some members shit their pants.

- ex-Catholic.

You're a mod here?

That's really sad.

tod evans
02-07-2014, 07:31 AM
You're a mod here?

That's really sad.

She's not "permitted" to have anti-Catholic feeling because she's a mod?

Freedom is the ability to discriminate against whomever you want for whatever reason you choose.

erowe1
02-07-2014, 07:33 AM
She's not "permitted" to have anti-Catholic feeling because she's a mod?

Freedom is the ability to discriminate against whomever you want for whatever reason you choose.

I'm not saying to ban her or not permit her to do anything. But the people enforcing the site policies should be people who are on board with the site's mission.

tod evans
02-07-2014, 09:46 AM
I'm not saying to ban her or not permit her to do anything. But the people enforcing the site policies should be people who are on board with the site's mission.


Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this site is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Best of my understanding "individual liberty" encompasses the freedom to discriminate at will.....

erowe1
02-07-2014, 09:51 AM
Best of my understanding "individual liberty" encompasses the freedom to discriminate at will.....

Who said anything about her not being free to do it?

tod evans
02-07-2014, 09:55 AM
I'm not saying to ban her or not permit her to do anything. But the people enforcing the site policies should be people who are on board with the site's mission.


Best of my understanding "individual liberty" encompasses the freedom to discriminate at will.....


Who said anything about her not being free to do it?

How, specifically, do you interpret Niki's post as not being "on board" with the mission statement?

erowe1
02-07-2014, 09:57 AM
She wasn't just being anti-Catholic. She specifically zeroed in on their pro-abstinance stance as the reason she will cheer on their disappearance. She might as well have been talking about Rand Paul.

tod evans
02-07-2014, 10:02 AM
She wasn't just being anti-Catholic. She specifically zeroed in on their pro-abstinance stance as the reason she will cheer on their disappearance. She might as well have been talking about Rand Paul.

But she wasn't was she?

Reading things into the typewritten word isn't generally a wise decision.

But continue on if it makes you feel better.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 10:21 AM
What a joke. Fire a teacher who is pregnant outside of wedlock despite her being an "excellent teacher," but throw millions away protecting the identities of child molesters while Catholic schools are closing at alarming rates all across America. Yep, they have their heads on straight.

So laughable. A pregnant teacher is the worst of their problems? Haha. Catholics are responsible for their own demise, and I can not wait until it happens. The pope can't utter a word without having some members shit their pants.

- ex-Catholic.Excellent post. One has to have been a Roman Catholic to understand.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 10:38 AM
She wasn't just being anti-Catholic. She specifically zeroed in on their pro-abstinance stance as the reason she will cheer on their disappearance. She might as well have been talking about Rand Paul.She specifically zeroed in on the child molester priests who are being paid their pensions and geographically moved around to cover their tracks. MILLIONS of Catholics are refusing to tythe to their parish.

erowe1
02-07-2014, 10:42 AM
She specifically zeroed in on the child molester priests who are being paid their pensions and geographically moved around to cover their tracks. MILLIONS of Catholics are refusing to tythe to their parish.

I just don't see how those things have to do with each other.

This school's decision was made by the leadership of this school. Does anyone even know what they think about how the RCC has handled sexual abuse by priests? And how does that relate to whether or not there was anything wrong with their firing of this teacher?

I seriously don't get how the OP is news at all. Much less how it can evoke that kind of reaction. Is this not the kind of thing that happens from time to time at all sorts of different places of employment?

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 11:00 AM
I just don't see how those things have to do with each other.

This school's decision was made by the leadership of this school. Does anyone even know what they think about how the RCC has handled sexual abuse by priests? And how does that relate to whether or not there was anything wrong with their firing of this teacher?

I seriously don't get how the OP is news at all. Much less how it can evoke that kind of reaction. Is this not the kind of thing that happens from time to time at all sorts of different places of employment?Some see this as an attack on a young pregnant woman, when all around us molesting priests have been given free reign to continue their criminal behavior.

Where else would a young pregnant woman be cast out of employment?

erowe1
02-07-2014, 11:07 AM
Where else would a young pregnant woman be cast out of employment?

Many other non-Catholic Christian schools.

erowe1
02-07-2014, 11:07 AM
Where else would a young pregnant woman be cast out of employment?

Many other non-Catholic Christian schools. And the same thing would happen to other people, including men, who violate their codes of conduct for employees.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 11:18 AM
Many other non-Catholic Christian schools. And the same thing would happen to other people, including men, who violate their codes of conduct for employees.I will never believe that firing this young woman was the right thing to do.

TER
02-07-2014, 11:35 AM
Just noticed this thread.

This is exactly why i am taking all three of my children to Catholic School starting in September. It is nice to see that some institutions of childhood learning uphold certain moral criteria and standards on those teachers who will be spending more hours of the waking day with my children then I can.

jj-
02-07-2014, 11:42 AM
Let's just have bimbos and sluts flashing their boobs in preschool classes. That's what will make many posters here happy.

TER
02-07-2014, 11:55 AM
Some see this as an attack on a young pregnant woman, when all around us molesting priests have been given free reign to continue their criminal behavior.

Where else would a young pregnant woman be cast out of employment?

I'm sure plenty of other private schools.

Just because there have been abusive priests does not mean then all immorality should be then allowed.

I think some have such deep hatred and prejudice against all things Catholic that they have a knee jerk reaction to criticize almost anything the Catholic Church does. Meanwhile, if it was an Islamic school or Indian School, or a strict Protestant school, they would have no problem with it enforcing such contracts.

TER
02-07-2014, 12:03 PM
What a joke. Fire a teacher who is pregnant outside of wedlock despite her being an "excellent teacher," but throw millions away protecting the identities of child molesters while Catholic schools are closing at alarming rates all across America. Yep, they have their heads on straight.

So laughable. A pregnant teacher is the worst of their problems? Haha. Catholics are responsible for their own demise, and I can not wait until it happens. The pope can't utter a word without having some members shit their pants.

- ex-Catholic.

I'm sure you will be long lost and forgotten before there is any demise of the Catholic Church.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 04:16 PM
Not surprising to see you write this crap.

Remember who's in the glass house (it's not me).

Point out the obvious and it puts boxers in a wad, I guess.

Catholic schools are failing. 25 High School's close a year, and Catholic elementary schools? 4x that rate. That's something the National Catholic Education Association even agrees with (http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1314&dat=19901119&id=NYYkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VQgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6027,7346394). That paper is from 1990, by the way...

Lets look at Brooklyn. In 2009, fourteen Catholic schools were either closed or merged. Since 2002, 40% of the Catholic elementary schools in Brooklyn were closed. In 2008, seven of these elementary schools turned into government-supported charter schools with 97% of parent's approval. You can read about that here (http://books.google.com/books?id=77vBQl45XqoC).

As much as it offends some, you just can't argue the statistics.


The problem is that there no longer are busloads of nuns; in fact, most schools would be lucky to have a Mini Cooper’s worth of such minimum-wage professional teachers. Their ranks have declined by a staggering 62 percent since 1965 (from 180,000 to 68,000). The staff composition of Catholic schools has similarly been turned on its head, from some 90 percent female religious in the ’50s to less than 5 percent today (see Figure 1). “The school system had literally been built on their backs,” reported Anthony Bryk, Valerie Lee, and Peter Holland in their 1992 study Catholic Schools and the Common Good, “through the services they contributed in the form of the very low salaries that they accepted.” Consequently, costs have soared; average annual tuition has gone from next to nothing to more than $2,400 in elementary schools and almost $6,000 in high schools.

Despite a growing Catholic population (from 45 million in 1965 to almost 77 million today, making it the largest Christian denomination in the United States), Catholic school enrollment has plummeted, from 5.2 million students in nearly 13,000 schools in 1960 to 2.5 million in 9,000 schools in 1990. After a promising increase in the late 1990s, enrollment had by 2006 dropped to 2.3 million students in 7,500 schools. And the steep decline would have been even steeper if these sectarian schools had to rely on their own flock for enrollment: almost 14 percent of Catholic school enrollment is now non-Catholic, up from less than 3 percent in 1970 (see Figure 2). When Catholic schools educated 12 percent of all schoolchildren in the United States, in 1965, the proportion of Catholics in the general population was 24 percent. Catholics still make up about one-quarter of the American population, but their schools enroll less than 5 percent of all students (see Figure 3).


According to the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA), between 2000 and 2006, nearly 600 Catholic elementary and secondary schools closed, a 7 percent decline, and nearly 290,000 students left, almost 11 percent. The largest declines were among elementary schools in 12 urban dioceses (New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Brooklyn, Cleveland, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Boston, Newark, Detroit, and Miami), which together have lost almost 20 percent of their students (more than 136,000) in the last five years.

This is from here (http://educationnext.org/can-catholic-schools-be-saved/).

My Catholic (Marist) high school has around 2, maybe 3 years at max left. When I attended, tuition was $6500/semester. Now, $9500/semester. Majority of our students come from poorer urban areas of NJ - Elizabeth, Newark, Roselle, etc. That doesn't stop the President and Principal from collecting 6 figures, though. The archdiocese of Newark has even made the bold statement that if their enrollment of the next class is less than 80 students, they will do nothing to help save it. Total enrollment for next class stands at 62 as of right now. 18 students from poorer areas of NJ won't come easy to find with tuition of $9500/semester.

My elementary school has announced this year, just recently, that it is closing its door next year, after 50 years.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 04:26 PM
Just noticed this thread.

This is exactly why i am taking all three of my children to Catholic School starting in September. It is nice to see that some institutions of childhood learning uphold certain moral criteria and standards on those teachers who will be spending more hours of the waking day with my children then I can.You have no idea what you are talking about, TER. Having had experience there myself, and my kids, you will be shocked.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 04:28 PM
I'm sure plenty of other private schools.

Just because there have been abusive priests does not mean then all immorality should be then allowed.

I think some have such deep hatred and prejudice against all things Catholic that they have a knee jerk reaction to criticize almost anything the Catholic Church does. Meanwhile, if it was an Islamic school or Indian School, or a strict Protestant school, they would have no problem with it enforcing such contracts.How does taking away this woman's employment and health care benefits show Christian charity?

tod evans
02-07-2014, 04:31 PM
My elementary school has announced this year, just recently, that it is closing its door next year, after 50 years.

What were once working class neighborhoods are now likely welfare neighborhoods that won't support private anything let alone schools.

I suspect that the Catholic schools are doing well in other locations, seeing as they always have.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 04:34 PM
Sometimes I wish some on you, Christian men, could/would get pregnant out of wedlock and see how it feels.

And, don't tell me it does not happen to Christians because it does - every day. It did to this young woman.

jj-
02-07-2014, 04:44 PM
Sometimes I wish some on you, Christian men, could/would get pregnant out of wedlock and see how it feels.

And, don't tell me it does not happen to Christians because it does - every day. It did to this young woman.

Right, but some people think teachers should be role models. They have a right to provide that type of education if they want to. If the woman broke a contract, the school doesn't owe her anything. If you are not willing to hire her, you are hypocritical in criticizing them.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 04:46 PM
What were once working class neighborhoods are now likely welfare neighborhoods that won't support private anything let alone schools.

I suspect that the Catholic schools are doing well in other locations, seeing as they always have.

The funny thing is, this school was in Clark, NJ - a very strong Republican/Christian stronghold in NJ (it's where Lonegan and Rand Paul had their rallys), and one of the richest areas in Union County. There's one more Catholic school in Clark open, and if I had to put money on it, I would admit they will probably be open for a while. Two HS's on the other hand in my county alone are preparing to close within the next 5 years.

It is sad. My town's public school is rated #326 out of 328 high schools in NJ. Public schools in Newark have surpassed us. The Catholic HS I attended was really my only shot at a quality education. The Marist Brothers pulled out their support of the HS, and things are now in shambles. I do feel bad for the kids, who in a few years will have no choice but to attend a failed NJ public school, as the only other Catholic HS option in my area is one that is $12,500/semester.

TNforPaul45
02-07-2014, 04:57 PM
Not surprising to see you write this crap.


I just don't see how those things have to do with each other.

This school's decision was made by the leadership of this school. Does anyone even know what they think about how the RCC has handled sexual abuse by priests? And how does that relate to whether or not there was anything wrong with their firing of this teacher?

I seriously don't get how the OP is news at all. Much less how it can evoke that kind of reaction. Is this not the kind of thing that happens from time to time at all sorts of different places of employment?


I'm sure you will be long lost and forgotten before there is any demise of the Catholic Church.

Since you three are such solid and stoic bible-thumper, towering over humanity with your clearly superior ability to morally judge life situations as well as those who hold opinions upon them, here is a few bible verses for you (you know, the book you claim justifies the treatment of the lady):

"Judge not, that you be not judged.
For with the judgement you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in thine own eye?
Or how can you say to your brother, 'let me take the speck out of your eye,' where there is the log in your own eye.
Thou hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."
Jesus
Matthew 7: 1-5

Nirvikalpa is making the EXACT same point that Jesus would if he were here. Catholic Church, thou hypocrites, remove first the log from thine own eye (child abuse) then thou will see clearly to remove the speck from another's eye (in their judgement, pregnancy, now let me say firmly, that I don't think there is any reason at all to have judged her, and they should have not fired her, and it was completely unfair of them to do so. I don't think Jesus would have judged her either. The over all point is that which Nirvi made, which is, they cannot put the houses of others in order when they themselves have dead bones inside theirs').

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:00 PM
I was wondering how long it would take for you to jump into this thread and play the white knight to Nirvikalpa.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 05:04 PM
I'm curious how people would feel if she (God forbid) went on unemployment or welfare to take care of her child?

TNforPaul45
02-07-2014, 05:09 PM
I was wondering how long it would take for you to jump into this thread and play the white knight to Nirvikalpa.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/custom/d/v/d44eec7654.jpg

TER
02-07-2014, 05:11 PM
How does taking away this woman's employment and health care benefits show Christian charity?

It is unfortunate that this young lady has lost a job. Being that she is supposedly a hard working excellent teacher, I hope she finds another job quickly.

TER
02-07-2014, 05:16 PM
Sometimes I wish some on you, Christian men, could/would get pregnant out of wedlock and see how it feels.

Wow, talk about Christian charity.

The sad part I think is that you really mean it and deep down would feel gratified if the men including me here got pregnant out of wedlck.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:17 PM
Sometimes I wish some on you, Christian men, could/would get pregnant out of wedlock and see how it feels.

And, don't tell me it does not happen to Christians because it does - every day. It did to this young woman.

Been there, done that. Best thing that could have ever happened to me and the reason I'm a Christian now.

And I'm getting married in 3 weeks :)

TER
02-07-2014, 05:18 PM
I'm curious how people would feel if she (God forbid) went on unemployment or welfare to take care of her child?

Eh, people do it everyday. I would be more impressed if she repented, seeked recommunion, and became an example to others, including the children she was placed as an authority over.

Origanalist
02-07-2014, 05:20 PM
Classy.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 05:21 PM
Eh, people do it everyday. I would be more impressed if she repented, seeked recommunion, and became an example to others, including the children she was placed as an authority over.

All that's certainly easy to do without a job.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:22 PM
Idiotic Picture

It's seems the mad one is you.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:23 PM
All that's certainly easy to do without a job.

I didn't realise that repentance and recommunion required a job.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 05:24 PM
I didn't realise that repentance and recommunion required a job.

Communion requires a payment, at least, it does around here. Same with confirmation. A heavy payment, too.

jj-
02-07-2014, 05:25 PM
All that's certainly easy to do without a job.
Then why don't you offer her a job? Otherwise, it's hypocritical to criticize others for not doing something you're not doing.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:25 PM
Communion requires a payment, at least, it does around here. Same with confirmation. A heavy payment, too.

That's BS. You are never required to pay to receive the Eucharist. You might have to pay for classes before Confirmation, but you do not pay for the Sacrament.

TER
02-07-2014, 05:26 PM
All that's certainly easy to do without a job.

Actually, it is often when people are at their lowest that they come to see their own faults and repent. The prodigal son was eating the food out of the mouths of pigs before he came to himself.

Hopefully, this lady will not have to reach such depths and I certainly do not wish it upon her. In the meanwhile, the school will do its best to fulfill the mission they have and are being payed money for by the parents, namely to educate and instill Christian morals and values to the best of their abilities.

tod evans
02-07-2014, 05:28 PM
I'm curious how people would feel if she (God forbid) went on unemployment or welfare to take care of her child?

This particular people is dead set against government supporting anyone!

GunnyFreedom
02-07-2014, 05:28 PM
Communion requires a payment, at least, it does around here. Same with confirmation. A heavy payment, too.

I was raised Catholic, confirmation and communion, and I've never heard of such a thing. :confused:

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:29 PM
I was raised Catholic, confirmation and communion, and I've never heard of such a thing. :confused:

She's just making it up.

jj-
02-07-2014, 05:31 PM
All that's certainly easy to do without a job.

If they keep her, parents might send their kids in the future to other schools who fire their pregnant teachers, and this school will have to have fewer teachers due to the reduced number of students. Why are you advocating that more teachers -some who didn't even get pregnant out of wedlock- lose their jobs?

TNforPaul45
02-07-2014, 05:32 PM
Classy.

So I suppose that the example of "classy" that I should live up to is that which you, Green73, and Eduardo89 have set for us over the past few years. Attacking and ganging up on anyone that doesnt agree with you, stalking and posting pictures of forum members and smearing them, engaging in activities for which you should have been perma-banned but OOPS here you are (magic, that). The Terrific Three, the heroes of RevBox and now the Moral Exemplars of RPF. *applauds*


It's seems the mad one is you.

Speaking of white knights riding to someone's defense, see Originalist's post above. Funny also how once again, you cannot substantively respond to the content of my post, but you have to resort to attacks, snide smears, and image-boosting statements. Not only can you not respond, but your "knights" cant either, lol. I can't wait for the ones to follow in regards to this post. You're like a bunch of kids standing on a street corner yelling "poopy-head" at people that walk by, then high-five'ing each other as if you got some burn in on them. In this regard, your Glenn Beck avatar suits you aptly.

Our deepest sympathies to your fiancee' on her upcoming marital hell.

Origanalist
02-07-2014, 05:36 PM
So I suppose that the example of "classy" that I should live up to is that which you, Green73, and Eduardo89 have set for us over the past few years. Attacking and ganging up on anyone that doesnt agree with you, stalking and posting pictures of forum members and smearing them, engaging in activities for which you should have been perma-banned but OOPS here you are (magic, that). The Terrific Three, the heroes of RevBox and now the Moral Exemplars of RPF. *applauds*



Speaking of white knights riding to someone's defense, see Originalist's post above. Funny also how once again, you cannot substantively respond to the content of my post, but you have to resort to attacks, snide smears, and image-boosting statements. Not only can you not respond, but your "knights" cant either, lol. I can't wait for the ones to follow in regards to this post. You're like a bunch of kids standing on a street corner yelling "poopy-head" at people that walk by, then high-five'ing each other as if you got some burn in on them. In this regard, your Glenn Beck avatar suits you aptly.

Our deepest sympathies to your fiancee' on her upcoming marital hell.

Wow. That is some serious vitriol. How long have you been holding that in? Please do expand on my smearing of forum members.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:38 PM
So I suppose that the example of "classy" that I should live up to is that which you, Green73, and Eduardo89 have set for us over the past few years. Attacking and ganging up on anyone that doesnt agree with you, stalking and posting pictures of forum members and smearing them, engaging in activities for which you should have been perma-banned but OOPS here you are (magic, that). The Terrific Three, the heroes of RevBox and now the Moral Exemplars of RPF. *applauds*

I don't see how any of that applies to Origanalist. And who's picture did I ever post on here?



Speaking of white knights riding to someone's defense, see Originalist's post above. Funny also how once again, you cannot substantively respond to the content of my post, but you have to resort to attacks, snide smears, and image-boosting statements. Not only can you not respond, but your "knights" cant either, lol. I can't wait for the ones to follow in regards to this post. You're like a bunch of kids standing on a street corner yelling "poopy-head" at people that walk by, then high-five'ing each other as if you got some burn in on them. In this regard, your Glenn Beck avatar suits you aptly.

You wanted me to respond substantively to a picture of an supposed picture of Jesus giving the middle finger?


Our deepest sympathies to your fiancee' on her upcoming marital hell.

I'll be sure to pass them on to her.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 05:42 PM
I was raised Catholic, confirmation and communion, and I've never heard of such a thing. :confused:

If we were a part of the school, but not a part of the Parish, we were required to pay to be a "part of the Parish" (a "donation" for the mass, the decorations, etc) or to at least help support the ceremony. Couple that with the celebration, attire, and we were all required to buy a pillow(?), but I forget what that was for. Maybe to kneel on.

For confirmation we were required to attend weekend meetings and bible study which wasn't covered by the school's teachings. Some opted out and took the classes elsewhere, but since most of us lived in the area and knew the school most opted in. I had no desire of being confirmed, especially when my church gave me problems with having my Aunt as my ... whatever you call it. They also didn't like that I chose a male saint as my name (Alexander = Alexis). Long story short, I did it to satisfy my mom.

TER
02-07-2014, 05:46 PM
If they keep her, parents might send their kids in the future to other schools who fire their pregnant teachers, and this school will have to have fewer teachers due to the reduced number of students. Why are you advocating that more teachers -some who didn't even get pregnant out of wedlock- lose their jobs?

Yep, if one teacher goes down because of not following the contract she signed to uphold Christian morals as an authority figure over children, then the whole school must go down!!!

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:50 PM
If we were a part of the school, but not a part of the Parish, we were required to pay to be a "part of the Parish" (a "donation" for the mass, the decorations, etc) or to at least help support the ceremony. Couple that with the celebration, attire, and we were all required to buy a pillow(?), but I forget what that was for. Maybe to kneel on.

For confirmation we were required to attend weekend meetings and bible study which wasn't covered by the school's teachings. Some opted out and took the classes elsewhere, but since most of us lived in the area and knew the school most opted in. I had no desire of being confirmed, especially when my church gave me problems with having my Aunt as my ... whatever you call it. They also didn't like that I chose a male saint as my name (Alexander = Alexis). Long story short, I did it to satisfy my mom.

And where all that were you charged to receive the Sacraments of the Eucharist or Confirmation?

It seems like they wanted you to pay for the additional cost of decorating the Church building, for your personal clothing, as well as for Bible study classes outside of school hours. I don't see why your school should be covering the expenses of all that.

TER
02-07-2014, 05:51 PM
If we were a part of the school, but not a part of the Parish, we were required to pay to be a "part of the Parish" (a "donation" for the mass, the decorations, etc) or to at least help support the ceremony. Couple that with the celebration, attire, and we were all required to buy a pillow(?), but I forget what that was for. Maybe to kneel on.

For confirmation we were required to attend weekend meetings and bible study which wasn't covered by the school's teachings. Some opted out and took the classes elsewhere, but since most of us lived in the area and knew the school most opted in. I had no desire of being confirmed, especially when my church gave me problems with having my Aunt as my ... whatever you call it. They also didn't like that I chose a male saint as my name (Alexander = Alexis). Long story short, I did it to satisfy my mom.

The lights and the electricity of the building stay on because of the stewardship of the faithful. Everyone who can is expected to help with the costs of the parish. I'm sure your family could afford it. And if your family could not afford it, I am equally sure the church would wave the fees and even pay for the things you listed above. Please don't bring in straw men arguments.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 05:53 PM
Right, but some people think teachers should be role models. They have a right to provide that type of education if they want to. If the woman broke a contract, the school doesn't owe her anything. If you are not willing to hire her, you are hypocritical in criticizing them.Some people think priests should be role models. They are rarely fired, even when Pope John Paul II, knows they are guilty. Read up on Legionaires of Christ. There is deep corruption in the church.

And, TER, please stop giving me sermons.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:54 PM
The lights and the electricity of the building stay on because of the stewardship of the faithful. Everyone who can is expected to help with the costs of the parish. I'm sure your family could afford it. And if your family could not afford it, I am equally sure the church would wave the fees and even pay for the things you listed above. Please don't bring in straw men arguments.

Yes, this is true. It is the duty of every Christian to support the Church. The Church does not require 10% tithing as was done in the Old Testament, but we are commanded to support Her with as much as we can. If you can afford to help with the decorations and other costs of a First Communion or Confirmation ceremony, you obviously should pay them.

However, I have never heard of anyone being charged to receive any of the Sacraments. That is one of the most absurd accusations against the Church I have ever heard.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 05:54 PM
Yep, if one teacher goes down because of not following the contract she signed to uphold Christian morals as an authority figure over children, then the whole school must go down!!!Then I pray the RCC comes down on the head of authority figures, like child molesting priests and those who hide them. TER, your children will not be safe in a RCC school.

TER
02-07-2014, 05:55 PM
Some people think priests should be role models. They are rarely fired, even when Pope John Paul II, knows they are guilty. Read up on Legionaires of Christ. There is deep corruption in the church.

And, TER, please stop giving me sermons.

I am giving you advice. You simply don't wish to hear it. You can put me on ignore. You won't be the first or the last.

TER
02-07-2014, 05:56 PM
Then I pray the RCC comes down on the head of authority figures, like child molesting priests and those who hide them. TER, your children will not be safe in a RCC school.

Thank you for your advice. I will take my chances.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 05:56 PM
I am giving you advice. You simply don't wish to hear it. You can put me on ignore. You won't be the first or the last.I'm not that childish. I simply do not want your advice, thanks.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 05:57 PM
Some people think priests should be role models. They are rarely fired, even when Pope John Paul II, knows they are guilty. Read up on Legionaires of Christ. There is deep corruption in the church.

I know very well about the Legionarios de Cristo. Most of my family was confirmed and receive Communion regularly from Maciel himself. I don't see what those abuses, which were dealt with exceptionally well by Pope-Emeritus Benedict has to do with this thread.


Then I pray the RCC comes down on the head of authority figures, like child molesting priests and those who hide them. TER, your children will not be safe in a RCC school.

Considering the rate of child abuse, even at the height of its prevalence within the Church, is much lower than at public schools, I'm sure TER's children will be fine.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 05:57 PM
Thank you for your advice. I will take my chances.Why would you take that chance, can't you home school?

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 05:58 PM
I know very well about the Legionarios de Cristo. Most of my family was confirmed and receive Communion regularly from Maciel himself. I don't see what those abuses, which were dealt with exceptionally well by Pope-Emeritus Benedict has to do with this thread.Right, you know all about it.

TER
02-07-2014, 06:00 PM
I'm not that childish. I simply do not want your advice, thanks.

:). With regards to your hatred for all things Catholic (your past experiences not withstanding), you are being childish. You have no idea the situation I am in with regards to the school options in my area (home schooling is not an option) but you are quick to offer your own advice that my children will not be safe.

Either way, I thank you for your advice and do not hope anything bad to come upon you just so that you can learn a lesson.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 06:03 PM
:). With regards to your hatred for all things Catholic (your past experiences not withstanding), you are being childish. You have no idea the situation I am in with regards to the school options in my area (home schooling is not an option) but you are quick to offer your own advice that my children will not be safe.

Either way, I thank you for your advice and do not hope anything bad to come upon you just so that you can learn a lesson.Wow, I really can't believe you said that. In other words, God may punish me for hating Catholicism?

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 06:05 PM
Wow, I really can't believe you said that. In other words, God may punish me for hating Catholicism?

I have no idea how you got that from what he wrote.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 06:06 PM
I have no idea how you got that from what he wrote.I simply have to be done with this. I have little respect for what you say.

TER
02-07-2014, 06:08 PM
Wow, I really can't believe you said that. In other words, God may punish me for hating Catholicism?

No, I am not saying that at all. I am reminding you of your previous comment in this thread wishing bad to fall upon the men in this forum so that they might learn a lesson. That kind of evil desire God might hold you accountable for.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 06:10 PM
No, I am not saying that at all. I am reminding you of your previous comment in this thread wishing bad to fall upon the men in this forum so that they might learn a lesson. That, God might hold you accountable for.Thanks for clarifying that. I know He will hold me accountable and for much more.

I'd like to done now as I don't think it is good for us to talk like this in a public forum. GOd bless you.

TER
02-07-2014, 06:12 PM
Thanks for clarifying that. I know He will hold me accountable and for much more.

I'd like to done now as I don't think it is good for us to talk like this in a public forum. GOd bless you.

God bless you too. And when you have vanquished the hate in your heart, I will be happy to talk with you again.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 06:16 PM
Yes, this is true. It is the duty of every Christian to support the Church. The Church does not require 10% tithing as was done in the Old Testament, but we are commanded to support Her with as much as we can. If you can afford to help with the decorations and other costs of a First Communion or Confirmation ceremony, you obviously should pay them.

However, I have never heard of anyone being charged to receive any of the Sacraments. That is one of the most absurd accusations against the Church I have ever heard.

I'm sure that's what many Catholics said when the first rumors of priests touching boys came out, too.

------

This isn't the first time a Catholic-school teacher has been fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock. The more and more it's reported, the more I wonder if the next woman who becomes pregnant/believes she may become pregnant will just march herself down to a clinic, or pop a pill to protect her job - and without anyone ever knowing, she will continue to teach your children the morals and ethics of a Catholic religion.

That's backwards. Perhaps it's what you don't know that occurs behind closed doors that will end up hurting your ethics and morals more than any women pregnant out of wedlock, but decided to keep her baby would. Cheers.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 06:17 PM
No, I am not saying that at all. I am reminding you of your previous comment in this thread wishing bad to fall upon the men in this forum so that they might learn a lesson. That kind of evil desire God might hold you accountable for.Just to clarify, TER. It is rare that a Christian man feels the consequence of fornication as a Christian woman does. However, men who say they are Christian, engage in fornication.

When I said, "I wish"....it was to say that men do not suffer the same consequences as women in this arena, and that stinks.

Eagles' Wings
02-07-2014, 06:21 PM
I'm sure that's what many Catholics said when the first rumors of priests touching boys came out, too.

------

This isn't the first time a Catholic-school teacher has been fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock. The more and more it's reported, the more I wonder if the next woman who becomes pregnant/believes she may become pregnant will just march herself down to a clinic, or pop a pill to protect her job - and without anyone ever knowing, she will continue to teach your children the morals and ethics of a Catholic religion.

That's backwards. Perhaps it's what you don't know that occurs behind closed doors that will end up hurting your ethics and morals more than any women pregnant out of wedlock, but decided to keep her baby would. Cheers.Yes, I'd say three cheers for this young woman who is keeping her baby.

She could actually teach her students something, too.

jj-
02-07-2014, 06:30 PM
She could actually teach her students something, too.

How to be a careless slut?

How you could succeed and be a teacher at a Catholic school even when you do the opposite of what Catholics teach?

TER
02-07-2014, 06:34 PM
I'm sure that's what many Catholics said when the first rumors of priests touching boys came out, too.

------

This isn't the first time a Catholic-school teacher has been fired for getting pregnant out of wedlock. The more and more it's reported, the more I wonder if the next woman who becomes pregnant/believes she may become pregnant will just march herself down to a clinic, or pop a pill to protect her job - and without anyone ever knowing, she will continue to teach your children the morals and ethics of a Catholic religion.

That's backwards. Perhaps it's what you don't know that occurs behind closed doors that will end up hurting your ethics and morals more than any women pregnant out of wedlock, but decided to keep her baby would. Cheers.

It is sad that such a thing as you posted above can happen. Sadder still that a women would kill the unborn in order to save a job. I'm sure it does happen, and for even more trivial reasons. She may do it in secret from men, but not from the eyes of God and her conscience will always be there to remind her of it (unless she drowns it out by preoccupying herself with pointing out the errors of others to justify her own sin).

Instead, if a young women really cared for the children she had been payed to teach and given authority over, and if she really put God above herself, she would be an even greater role model to the children if she were to repent, face the consequences of her actions, lose her job, have the child, and seek forgiveness and recommunion. In this way she can truly be an inspiration and role model to her students. And that is exactly the way it still happens now and has happened in the past, though it doesn't reach headline news.

The problem is people like yourself who wish to see the destruction of the Catholic Church and take any opportunity you can to attack it, and in the meanwhile, instead of doing the right thing to rectify the young woman's situation, encourage her all the more to avoid repentance and take the more broad and travelled road which leads to destruction.

Nirvikalpa
02-07-2014, 06:42 PM
It is sad that such a thing as you posted above can happen. Sadder still that a women would kill the unborn in order to save a job. I'm sure it does happen, and for even more trivial reasons. She may do it in secret from men, but not from the eyes of God and her conscience will always be there to remind her of it (unless she drowns it out by preoccupying herself with pointing out the errors of others to justify her own sin).

Instead, if a young women really cared for the children she had been payed to teach and given authority over, and if she really put God above herself, she would be an even greater role model to the children if she were to repent, face the consequences of her actions, lose her job, have the child, and seek forgiveness and recommunion. In this way she can truly be an inspiration and role model to her students. And that is exactly the way it still happens now and has happened in the past, though it doesn't reach headline news.

The problem is people like yourself who wish to see the destruction of the Catholic Church and take any opportunity you can to attack it, and in the meanwhile, instead of doing the right thing to rectify the young woman's situation, encourage her all the more to avoid repentance and take the more broad and travelled road which leads to destruction.

I "see" the destruction of the Catholic Church. I am not helping it along. I don't have to attack it, it's crumbling on it's own with it's steady decline of Church-goers & school closings, probably linked directly to instances like this. Does the Catholic church paying to keep things on the down-low in regards to priests molesting kids not lead to destruction? The Church has taken the more broad and travelled road for a long while now - and as I've simply pointed out and you reiterated - it will lead to destruction.

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 07:34 PM
I "see" the destruction of the Catholic Church. I am not helping it along. I don't have to attack it, it's crumbling on it's own with it's steady decline of Church-goers & school closings, probably linked directly to instances like this. Does the Catholic church paying to keep things on the down-low in regards to priests molesting kids not lead to destruction? The Church has taken the more broad and travelled road for a long while now - and as I've simply pointed out and you reiterated - it will lead to destruction.

What you are seeing is the demise of the West, but do not mistake that for the demise of the Church.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 07:55 PM
Ultimate Goal: Total Control

You've all been Trolled.

The people in power that we know to be a danger to the survival of the planet are very smart. They're not playing checkers, they're playing chess. And in chess, they will use what ever position you take to their advantage. You'll see them constantly change the goal posts. When you take their bishop, they take your queen. When knight takes rook, you end up in check. Eventually, you'll end up in Checkmate if you allow them to control ALL of your moves.

Now take one step back and realize how angry many of you are. That anger can be used to control you, and often is the result of changing the goal posts. Get you worked up about this, then focus your anger somewhere else that is to the advantage of the controllers. Say someone gets mad about something that happened at work. Doesnt matter why or what you do, the fact that youve been angered is enough. Then you come home and kick your dog. You scold your child more than they deserve. They use your anger against you. They dont care about the small squabbles like this, their intent is to get you SO worked up and so angry that as soon as they can find an exposed nerve, they exploit that nerve to the maximum possible extent. Anger gives the Politicians the ability to say "we have support" for a War. A war with who? I dont know, look at how many countries the US has sent troops to invade. They need you to support their endless wars, and they need your anger to do it.

In order to get you as worked up as possible to show support for another invasion of the US into another country, they have to start small because its something that on the scales they look at, most people arent able to relate to. They have to start small. This is the consequence of having zero privacy. They know how you'll react to certain things depending on ALL opinions that you have. They start smaller arguments for the sake of arguing because people dont let the small shit go. Then they turn it up a notch and use every opportunity to piss you off that they can when War is what is desired. The war with Syria failed because they did not anger the US against something enough to begin with so they did NOT have the support (read: Anger) of the people. Ever wonder why we spot Romney as being a Flip Flop? Lots of us here do, but the Romney supporters do not. If the non members of this community were to get upset directly at Romney, the strategy would fail. Its why their strategy fails most often in our ranks. We see the Flip Flop and the goal post changing and realize it is provocation. The people that get upset dont focus their anger on Romney, they focus their anger on the subject that Romeny is communicating. Others respond better to different candidates. Both candidates are controlled, and conflict between who supports who allows the illusion of choice to be maintained while at the same time, provoking conflict and dividing the people amonst themselves.

Take a step back and look at everything all at the same time. Think about the expected responses that all people (not just you) are supposed to have to almost every single news story. Not every story can anger everyone, so you get a wide variety of news stories, where at least one is supposed to provoke a strong emotional response in some way shape or form. Stories like this, there are two sides to, but do you think this Anger isnt going to be useful to the powers that be? How about Fear? We talk about this all the time. Be afraid of Terrorists. Be afraid of Guns. Get angry at someone that refuses to give up any sort of gun rights. Justin Bieber: Distraction. Olympics: also Distraction. Economics and Politics provoke Disinterst and Confusion. Its an advantage of the short stories. Fluff pieces of talking cats: feel good stories that reinforce the idea of trusting the MSM. The MSM cares about Ratings and uses a formula of Patterns, much like Cooking. A little Anger, a little Fear, a tocuh of Fluff. The constant changes in the types of stories are to get you to stay focused only on one subject at a time. We all know how to manipulate each other to a certain degree, but these guys are Master Manipulators. They take the Hegalian Dialect to a whole new level. They use Emotional Chemistry. Not just Anger, but Anger plus Group Think. Fear plus Compassion. Im not anyones Enemy here, but there are times I have to make myself a Target just to show that if I can anger you about ANYTHING by presenting an opposing viewpoint, someone else very easily can as well, and they will use your response to their Maximum Advantage. Its also incredibly important to note youre own responses as well as the types of responses that come from everyone. Watch how your friends and family express disinterest in certain subjects, but on occasion find some stories to be extremely provocative. Are your friends and family being manipulated the same way?

Cops are programmed the same way. Be afraid of the Citizens because they might be carrying guns or dealing drugs. Be afraid of Terrorists. Be angry with people that arent just like you. But above all, dehumanize the Real Targets like Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc so the Masses support another Unjust War. Want a Real Solution to this specific topic? What would Jesus do? How would he settle the dispute? How about Ron Paul? This thread is done when you realize the expected outcome is that we are supposed to Fight about this. We're all frustrated about where we are going, and that anger is spilling over into this thread, but it wont stop there. It will continue to accumulate until either support of a War is given to the Politicans and Bankers, or the outlet of the anger is taken out on the Govt resulting in more Oppression. We dont have any control over the actions or decisions of the Church or who and how they employ people. We do have control over our own reactions. We can treat our employees with respect and be reasonable and work things out. Thats what makes us Leaders.

Any Moderator would be fully in the right to permanently ban me from this forum for the level of hostility that I've provoked. I walked right in and kicked the Hornet's Nest, on purpose. Once it was apparent to me that any reasonable solution was no longer being sought, it was time to allow this small fire to turn into a shitstorm of anger. All for the simple lesson that the level of emotional responses in this thread CAN be used against you when they spill over elsewhere. They take your Fear and use it to support more Tyrannical Laws. They take your anger and use it in ways that are useful to them. I wrote another thread about learning from ones Failures, and the real Failure in this thread isnt the subject that is being disagreed on, but to react in the expected ways that we are taught. Public Schools dont teach children to think for themselves, and to abstract by pulling back and looking at how the small affects the big picture. Children are taught that as soon as they get a wrong answer to look to Authority for any solution. We are better than that and dont look to Authority because we know not to trust them, but those same leanred concepts are obvious here in this thread. Protect your Group. Attack any who oppose your groups idea. Let the specifics determine the course of action and struggle to win the battle while losing the War. Make no mistake the War is on ALL OF US. We are supposed to be as Divided as they can possibly make us, and like Angela said, this is where our group falls apart. Understand the methods of Division, Catholic vs Teacher, Chocolate vs Peanut Butter, it makes no difference, our reactions are used to make us HATE each other so when I am under attack by the Real Enemy, you wont offer your support to defend me, just as I am supposed to hate any that oppose my perspective so I dont come to their aid.

Im sure that the thread will continue as the specific topic at hand is still a spectacle of contention. Its not the point. Point is that most people here are reacting exactly as they are programmed to. If this topic doesnt make you respond with a sense of anger, dont worry, something WILL come up where you will become angry. And even if nothing manages to truly anger you, enough people will be angry enough that the anger from their responses will be useful to those that seek more and more power. Perhaps there is something out there that you are truly afraid of. That will also be used when there is enough of it. See the responses of MANY people in general and shift your perspective to see that the Emotional Responses can be used. Dont just look at this fight, look at the bigger picture and what results from this fight. Look at other types of Fights. For example, 9/11 Truthers. Let it happen and Made it happen groups. There is a lot of fighting over the subject at hand there as well. But look at how Govt used peoples responses and 9/11 in general to exploit the situation to the fullest extent. Then notice how much people fight about various things and the results of fighting. Look at the responses of those angered by the fight, then where they place their support. Are they supporting war because they are angry about a lot of different little things all at once? When the US invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, they had the support of the people because the people were angry and afraid.

Look at me for a moment, then think about the next person who expresses a similar viewpoint on the specific topic at hand. Your responses to anything I said earlier will most likely carry over to the next somewhat similar individual. Everyone will have a different response. Some very angry, some supportive, some will disregard. The intensity of the emotional response regardless of what that response may be is what allows Manipulation. While we do what ever we do, we are focused mostly on each other and totally miss the fact our car is being stolen. Advantage is being taken by our focus on each other and specific subjects. Pickpockets do this all the time. Misdirection and Manipulation. So do Politicians and Warmongers. Martial Arts teaches one to always be aware of ones surroundings. Too much or too little focus on any subject leaves one vunerable. You and someone else are bound to disagree, but what happens in the meantime? Does one of their buddies come up and smack you in the back of the head? Do you get so angry that someone calls the Cops on you? Do you realize that youre being worked up so what ever strong emtional response is used elsewhere? If you realized that I was trying to get people worked up, you now understand that I have absolutely no control over you at all, and that is exactly where you need to be. In control of yourself, not by me, not by a Church, a Cop, a Politician, a School, a Bank, an Employer, or anyone else. Youre in control. And hopefully that sense that you are really the only one that controls you should feel empowering and liberating. Now, what are you going to do with that control?

The Ultimate Goal is Total Control. The game is rigged. And as long as we continue to play by their rules and respond the way we are expected to respond, they have the advantage. Its time to break their rules and play by our own. Just as in Wargames, the only solution is not to play. Make your own rules.

jj-
02-07-2014, 08:00 PM
You've all been Trolled.

Yes, by DamianTV.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 08:17 PM
Yes, by DamianTV.

Thats right. And I openly admit to it. Now read the post.

jj-
02-07-2014, 08:20 PM
Thats right. And I openly admit to it. Now read the post.

haha, way tl.

ETA: Ok, I skimmed it, the same nonsense I'm now used to expect from you.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 08:24 PM
haha, way tl.

ETA: Ok, I skimmed it, the same nonsense I'm now used to expect from you.

Then let me troll you a little bit more since you cant see the big piture.

I support the firing of the teacher because it was a voluntary contract.

Now you shouldnt trust me at all. Right?

jj-
02-07-2014, 08:26 PM
Then let me troll you a little bit more since you cant see the big piture.

I support the firing of the teacher because it was a voluntary contract.

You have said that already, along with a bunch of useless contradictory things, and then made a huge content-free, not to say idiotic, post.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 08:28 PM
You have said that already, along with a bunch of useless contradictory things, and then made a huge content-free, not to say idiotic, post.

Keep going, youre almost there...

(Hint: Flip Flop and intentional provocation)

jj-
02-07-2014, 08:32 PM
Keep going, youre almost there...

(Hint: Flip Flop and intentional provocation)

Hint: I'm not angry. I'm extremely relaxed.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 08:43 PM
Hint: I'm not angry. I'm extremely relaxed.

You started to relax because you understood I was trying to provoke you, right? If I can manage to get you worked up about anything, someone else can take that level of frustration and direct it somewhere else. Maybe not you specifically, but others, and get them to use all that anger and support a War. Start small, end big. Thats the way trolling works.

jj-
02-07-2014, 08:44 PM
You started to relax because you understood I was trying to provoke you, right? If I can manage to get you worked up about anything, someone else can take that level of frustration and direct it somewhere else. Maybe not you specifically, but others, and get them to use all that anger and support a War. Start small, end big. Thats the way trolling works.

Your trolling posts make as much sense and have as little content as your non-trolling posts. You feel like you're in a mission, like you're the hero, but just reveal you're a fool.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 08:49 PM
Your trolling posts make as much sense and have as little content as your non-trolling posts. You feel like you're in a mission, like you're the hero, but just reveal you're a fool.

Then consider me the "Controlled Opposition". If any response can be provoked, those that would "control me" will offer you a solution that you'll be more responsive to. If I wasnt there to provoke you to begin with, you wouldnt be as receptive to the proposed solution. Problem Reaction Solution. Create a Problem that you have a Reaction to, then the Solution is one that serves those that "control me", thereby controlling you.

jj-
02-07-2014, 08:51 PM
Then consider me the "Controlled Opposition". If any response can be provoked, those that would "control me" will offer you a solution that you'll be more responsive to. If I wasnt there to provoke you to begin with, you wouldnt be as receptive to the proposed solution. Problem Reaction Solution. Create a Problem that you have a Reaction to, then the Solution is one that serves those that "control me", thereby controlling you.

ok, you're very smart. keep doing what you're doing you'll save this country.

DamianTV
02-07-2014, 08:55 PM
ok, you're very smart. keep doing what you're doing you'll save this country.

Great. Im not the only one you dont like. Hell, no one should like me at all right now. Replace me in the equation. How many others will you no longer support or defend because of any differences of opinions? Do you see Divide and Conquer happening?

eduardo89
02-07-2014, 08:57 PM
Great. Im not the only one you dont like.

I think she likes me, though.

KingRobbStark
02-07-2014, 09:56 PM
She should confess her sin, then god will a forgive her. That way she can still keep her job, because she didnt break the contract.

Anti Federalist
02-07-2014, 10:43 PM
Oh...I see...

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/leaving-now-grandpa-simpsons.gif

fr33
02-07-2014, 11:06 PM
Why oh why are there so many pages on this topic? SMH

It's a catholic school so yeah it's not an unexpected stance.

As for the hypocrisy conspiracy, it's a private school so why give a fuck. You want to go back and kill the Branch Davidians again if you didn't like how they lived?

fr33
02-07-2014, 11:10 PM
You know what's much worse than this story? Public schools that ban boys from having long hair and/or facial hair.

Weston White
02-08-2014, 01:40 AM
How to be a careless slut?

How you could succeed and be a teacher at a Catholic school even when you do the opposite of what Catholics teach?

A teacher’s personal life is part of their student’s “Beeswax. Not Yours, Incorporated”.

I find it highly doubtful that the topic of promiscuity is ever on the student’s teaching agenda, especially at a Catholic private school.

Is becoming a single mother really all that offensive to the teachings of Catholics? And if so then perhaps being a Catholic is no longer such a grand idea in a modernistic, evolved society, you know sort of like democracies, monarchies, slavery, torture, blasphemy, heresy, or the Spanish Inquisition.

Is the underlying issue really so much that she became pregnant while single or that she was sexually active while unmarried? If the answer is the latter is the solution then birth-control, abortions, or chastity belts…but only if for their female staff?

Do you honestly feel and believe that an American citizens’ sexuality and family choices is an unprotected right that is to be dictated by the grace of those employing them?

Presuming that her status as a single mother results in no discernable impact on her skills and abilities to function as a valuable teacher, does terminating her for that very reason not cross the line into stripping her of her core immutable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Further, what if the teacher had instead adopted a child as a single mother, would that life choice also be frowned upon by Catholics as grounds for termination?

Moreover, will her status as a single mother result in a similarly sordid affluence of resentment, hostility, or hatred against the school as if say she worked a side career as a professional porno-star?

Alternatively, what about if she began writing publicly searchable Internet blogs in support of Edward Snowden and the school were made aware of her support of an alleged traitor and Russian spy, would that be grounds for termination as well?

Weston White
02-08-2014, 02:47 AM
Instead, if a young women really cared for the children she had been payed to teach and given authority over, and if she really put God above herself, she would be an even greater role model to the children if she were to repent, face the consequences of her actions, lose her job, have the child, and seek forgiveness and recommunion.

My goodness, if I did not know the context behind this complex statement, I would be left to presume that she had fornicated with one of her juvenile students, becoming impregnated in the process.

And what if she had committed an act of murder, what more could she do to resolve her sins in the eyes of Catholicism?

From a philosophical viewpoint, the Bible speaks a great deal in the context of avoiding the sin of being “sexually immoral”, while certainly in the Old Testament (which is no longer relevant in modern societies) that would likely include becoming unchaste while unmarried; however, in the New Testament I would tend to believe its proper context would bear more on refraining from acts of unlawful sexual intercourse or engaging in “unnatural desires” than its former restrictive context. Certainly, a professional single adult female becoming a mother is neither an unlawful activity nor unnatural.

Even still, a married couple could—either with each other and/or others—practice sexual immorality or engage in unnatural desires, but it is higihly doubtful the church will ever be made aware of such practices.

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the male is largely the principal found at fault for committing the sins of advancing sexual immorality, for example: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.” – Exodus 22:16


But shall we take into our hearts the teachings of the Old Testament, there will be many deaths to tally:

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” – Leviticus 18:22, 20:13


[I]nstead of doing the right thing to rectify the young woman's situation, encourage her all the more to avoid repentance and take the more broad and travelled road which leads to destruction.

Hold your horses there, isn’t it more that the policies (based upon mere traditional Biblical interpretations) of the church encourage woman who partake in the enjoyment of their own sexuality to look toward or become pressured into truly defiling their bodies with the harsh chemicals of birth-control or the physical and mental consequences of abortion in order to cover-up their happenstance pregnancies?

And what about their sinning male partner, are they to be left free to go about unpunished?

Do you seriously believe that all of the churches unmarried male staff and its members practices abstinence?

How is making the choice to give birth, to create life, traveling the road to destruction?

Isn’t it much more destructive (and socially unproductive) to take away the livelihood of soon to be single mother that has committed the supposed sin of unwedded fornication?

Was anybody truly harmed or damned from her “misdeed”, is her becoming pregnant actually causing any other any serious afflictions (e.g., is lifelong pain and suffering going to bestow her presumably fatherless child; will it likely bring about the Great Tribulation)?

Ender
02-08-2014, 02:21 PM
My goodness, if I did not know the context behind this complex statement, I would be left to presume that she had fornicated with one of her juvenile students, becoming impregnated in the process.

And what if she had committed an act of murder, what more could she do to resolve her sins in the eyes of Catholicism?

From a philosophical viewpoint, the Bible speaks a great deal in the context of avoiding the sin of being “sexually immoral”, while certainly in the Old Testament (which is no longer relevant in modern societies) that would likely include becoming unchaste while unmarried; however, in the New Testament I would tend to believe its proper context would bear more on refraining from acts of unlawful sexual intercourse or engaging in “unnatural desires” than its former restrictive context. Certainly, a professional single adult female becoming a mother is neither an unlawful activity nor unnatural.

Even still, a married couple could—either with each other and/or others—practice sexual immorality or engage in unnatural desires, but it is higihly doubtful the church will ever be made aware of such practices.

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, the male is largely the principal found at fault for committing the sins of advancing sexual immorality, for example: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.” – Exodus 22:16


But shall we take into our hearts the teachings of the Old Testament, there will be many deaths to tally:

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” – Leviticus 18:22, 20:13



Hold your horses there, isn’t it more that the policies (based upon mere traditional Biblical interpretations) of the church encourage woman who partake in the enjoyment of their own sexuality to look toward or become pressured into truly defiling their bodies with the harsh chemicals of birth-control or the physical and mental consequences of abortion in order to cover-up their happenstance pregnancies?

And what about their sinning male partner, are they to be left free to go about unpunished?

Do you seriously believe that all of the churches unmarried male staff and its members practices abstinence?

How is making the choice to give birth, to create life, traveling the road to destruction?

Isn’t it much more destructive (and socially unproductive) to take away the livelihood of soon to be single mother that has committed the supposed sin of unwedded fornication?

Was anybody truly harmed or damned from her “misdeed”, is her becoming pregnant actually causing any other any serious afflictions (e.g., is lifelong pain and suffering going to bestow her presumably fatherless child; will it likely bring about the Great Tribulation)?

Ya know, none of this is anyone's damned business.

Open your own school and hire whom you will.

Brian4Liberty
02-08-2014, 02:47 PM
Threads like this belong in the Open Discussion Sub-forum:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/forumdisplay.php?275-Open-Discussion

Weston White
02-08-2014, 11:23 PM
Déclassé.