Bernie and fellow hate heathens trying to keep Christians out of government

[Rage Against the McKee]

Good way to double down on a mistake.

Or simply make a choice about your body and correcting what you feel was a mistake.

In this case, it would be more about making a choice so the assholes you work for don't fire you.

[Emo EMAW]

I think a good person could, depends on the woman.  Christianity espouses forgiveness.  If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.

It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.

I think a good person could personally forgive her and still do their job and fire her.

[Emo EMAW]

Good way to double down on a mistake.

Or simply make a choice about your body and correcting what you feel was a mistake.

Murder is never correct.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think a good person could, depends on the woman.  Christianity espouses forgiveness.  If the woman was repentant I think it would be Christian to forgive.

It would be Christian to forgive, regardless.

I think a good person could personally forgive her and still do their job and fire her.

I don't think so, Emo. There are no good nazis.

[Cartierfor3]

Dlew, do you think it is right for a catholic school to fire a teacher for getting pregnant when she isn't married?

I don't know how catholic schools operate, but if the teacher had signed a moral clause to remain celibate then the school would be within their rights to fire her. There are churches where you have to sign agreements not to drink alcohol etc. I doubt those clauses exist for catholic schools, but if the requirement to work there is stated clearly then the school is within their rights.

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

I think that is a stretch and a different scenario, because you are then talking about a people group and not a faith system. Those are very different. But if you sign up to teach at KKK University and then are fired for that blacks are not inferior, yeah, I'm fine with KKK University firing you. Why the eff would you want to teach at a private school that's core value system is based upon something you feel is oppressive or untrue or immoral?

Vought's position is one based on faith, not race, and therein lies the difference. 

I guess I draw the line in that a religious organization that employs people to teach a specific theology and dogma has the right to expect teachers they employee to adhere to that dogma and theology. An Islamic school who employed a teacher who started wearing a cross and stating that Jesus is Lord or whatever would be 100% justified in firing that person. I mean, if you agree to a standard of living as part of your employment that's part of a job. Sure you have a legal right to grow a beard or get a face tattoo and are free to do so as your expression, but certain jobs forbid that as a clause to employment.

Cartier, do you think a good person would ever fire a woman because she got pregnant?

I don't like the phrasing of "good person" because the question of morality in this scenario is on the action, not the person.

Do I think firing a woman for getting pregnant would be immoral? Probably yes, but not absolutely. I mean what if that person is a professional nun or something. Like, I don't understand how the catholic church works, but if a nun got pregnant I don't think it would be immoral to say she can't be a nun anymore, but to offer her another job or role which she could transition to.

Would I ever fire a woman for getting pregnant? No, and I wouldn't ever take a job where that would be asked of me.

[yachtbroker]

That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.

No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.

There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing.  It's a private religious school.  They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share.  If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her. 

I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.

Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination."  At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense. 

I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send.  That seems unfair.  Maybe that's where we disagree. 

Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous.  Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it.   Students can see the tattoo.  It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

The Supreme Court has settled this from a purely legal perspective.  It's called the ministerial exception:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

[Tobias]

crap is there another one?

[Rage Against the McKee]

I don't like the phrasing of "good person" because the question of morality in this scenario is on the action, not the person.

Isn't a person defined by his or her actions?

Do I think firing a woman for getting pregnant would be immoral? Probably yes, but not absolutely. I mean what if that person is a professional nun or something. Like, I don't understand how the catholic church works, but if a nun got pregnant I don't think it would be immoral to say she can't be a nun anymore, but to offer her another job or role which she could transition to.

Would I ever fire a woman for getting pregnant? No, and I wouldn't ever take a job where that would be asked of me.

Would you want somebody who has fired women for getting pregnant based upon his faith to have a cabinet position?

[Cartierfor3]

RATM, you are exhausting me dude.

[Cartierfor3]

I don't like the phrasing of "good person" because the question of morality in this scenario is on the action, not the person.

Isn't a person defined by his or her actions?

I guess, but the action is still the question. If you're asking if the hypothetical firing of a pregnant woman in some scenario that I'm not even 100% sure exists is the defining action between being a good or bad person, then no I don't think that action is the tipping point of the scale.

Would you want somebody who has fired women for getting pregnant based upon his faith to have a cabinet position?

I mean, I don't know. Probably not, but I'm not going to make some absolute statement about that.

[Rage Against the McKee]

It's a scenario that exists, Cartier.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant/

[michigancat]

That is quite a jump to get to "highly likely to discriminate" based on this dude's thoughts about Wheaton college. I mean, to work there you literally have to sign a statement of faith that you believe in the trinity, that Jesus was God, that Mary was a virgin etc. By that logic anyone who has ever worked at Wheaton or almost any seminary, church, religious institution etc should be barred from public service.

No, just people who publicly support the university for being discriminatory. Vought said that many faculty and alumni were outraged by the firing in his blog post, so it's not like all of them are bad people. I wouldn't be surprised if Vought is in the minority with his opinion.

There's nothing outrageous at all about the firing.  It's a private religious school.  They have a particular theological view that, ostensibly, they want their students to share.  If one of the professors is sending a message (whether or not she explains the context of her message on her facebook) that doesn't fit within that school's theological view, it makes perfect sense to get rid of her. 

I don't think that thinking that makes me a bad person, I think it makes that professor a bad fit for that particular school.

Well, I believe that discrimination is wrong even when it is legal, so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

Yeah but I don't view that as "discrimination."  At least not discrimination in any wrongful sense. 

I don't think a private institution should have to employ someone who is sending a different message than that private institution wants to send.  That seems unfair.  Maybe that's where we disagree. 

Let me use an example that is extreme, but i think still analogous.  Let's say we have a catholic high school math teacher who, one day, decides he wants to show his devotion to satan by getting a large visible forearm tattoo of Beelzebub himself, complete with "666" underneath and a nice big heart around it.   Students can see the tattoo.  It's wrong for the school to say "wtf" and part ways with him?

taking another extreme example, what if the school interpreted scripture to take the position that blacks were an inferior race and fired someone who questioned this interpretation? Would someone who supported that school's action be fit for a high profile position in the federal government? How do you draw the line where "religious freedom" trumps non-discrimination?

The Supreme Court has settled this from a purely legal perspective.  It's called the ministerial exception:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_%26_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

That's different from what I'm saying. If a guy writes a blog post in favor of Fred Phelps' stance on homosexuality, citing his faith, should he be considered unfit for a position of government? Or is his belief that homosexuals are inferior considered "freedom of religion" and therefore shouldn't be questioned?

[Cartierfor3]

It's a scenario that exists, Cartier.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant/

I mean, its the Catholic Church. It ain't some big secret what you're signing up for. If you don't want to embrace the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church I don't think working for them is a great idea. I think there's probably a healthy middle ground where the school could change your role or something like that and keep your job.

[star seed 7]

The teachers should just molest students, that is not a fireable offense from what I understand

[Cartierfor3]

Michigancat where do you draw the line about a claim of one faith being more true than another being a deal breaker for public office? If someone claims that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu etc is the true way to eternal life or something similar to that is that person then unfit for public office?

[420seriouscat69]

Pretty sure the dumbasses who get pregnant that don't mean too, flunked health class. Sad.

[michigancat]

It's a scenario that exists, Cartier.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/catholic-religious-schools-fired-lady-teachers-being-pregnant/

I mean, its the Catholic Church. It ain't some big secret what you're signing up for. If you don't want to embrace the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church I don't think working for them is a great idea. I think there's probably a healthy middle ground where the school could change your role or something like that and keep your job.

What if you don't want the federal government to embrace the sexual ethics of the Catholic Church? Maybe you could avoid it by not hiring folks who fully support firing women for being pregnant.

[Cartierfor3]

so no catholics allowed to hold office then?

[Cartierfor3]

Its just such a massive leap to assume that someone would hold a public government worker to the same theological/sexual ethic/philosophical standard that they hold someone employed by the church or private evangelical college or whatever to.

[Cartierfor3]

lib7, RATM, abe, WC08, dax, etc how do you guys do this all day. the pit is exhausting.

[michigancat]

Michigancat where do you draw the line about a claim of one faith being more true than another being a deal breaker for public office? If someone claims that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu etc is the true way to eternal life or something similar to that is that person then unfit for public office?

I really don't know, and that's what makes this such an interesting discussion and one we should be having.

Where do YOU draw the line? I think it's obvious you think it's OK to say Christianity is the only path to salvation. You think it's OK to say Muslims and Jews are "condemned" because they don't consider Jesus a god. But what about someone's faith saying blacks have the curse of Cain and therefore can't be clergy or that God Hates mommies?

[star seed 7]

This place is a picnic compared to the cloakroom bud

[Rage Against the McKee]

Its just such a massive leap to assume that someone would hold a public government worker to the same theological/sexual ethic/philosophical standard that they hold someone employed by the church or private evangelical college or whatever to.

I really don't think it is. People who perform evil acts while standing behind their faith are still performing evil acts and should not be considered for public employment. At the very least, it should be perfectly ok for somebody to use that as a basis for voting to not confirm them.

[michigancat]

so no catholics allowed to hold office then?

Plenty of Catholics disagree with the policy. I mean, read the first line from the article RATM linked.

Its just such a massive leap to assume that someone would hold a public government worker to the same theological/sexual ethic/philosophical standard that they hold someone employed by the church or private evangelical college or whatever to.

Your faith is so strong that you think it's acceptable to fire the pregnant woman from the church, but not important enough to fire the pregnant woman from government? How strong is your faith, in that case, really?

[_33]

Michigancat where do you draw the line about a claim of one faith being more true than another being a deal breaker for public office? If someone claims that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hindu etc is the true way to eternal life or something similar to that is that person then unfit for public office?

I really don't know, and that's what makes this such an interesting discussion and one we should be having.

Where do YOU draw the line? I think it's obvious you think it's OK to say Christianity is the only path to salvation. You think it's OK to say Muslims and Jews are "condemned" because they don't consider Jesus a god. But what about someone's faith saying blacks have the curse of Cain and therefore can't be clergy or that God Hates mommies?

The line you're talking about has 99.999% on one side and .001% on the other.