Woman Fired for Being a Female.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Chairboy
He brings up an interesting point, though.  Even if she was also paid for other duties as an employee but she was released because of the sunday school teaching, why wouldn't the anti-discrimination laws apply?

I was originally thinking in terms of "let them do whatever" because I assumed she was a volunteer, but if she's an employee, I can see why this would be a discussion point.

Show me one case where a man has been allowed to have an abortion.

No justice, no peace!

[midnight Target]

Yea, I kinda assumed she was just a Sunday school volunteer.

[Seagoon]

Hi All,

Just wanted to address a few of the issues raised in this post.

First, membership in the Baptist church is a purely voluntary association. The government (or polity) of most Baptist churches is congregational. In other words, final authority for the decisions of the church is vested in the members who decide on church policy via majority votes. Most Baptist churches have a few by-laws and others have a standard or confession (that operates like a Constitution) that they abide by such as the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 or the London Baptist Confession of 1689. In most cases though, the policies of the church can change freely according to the desires of the members. So merely having taught for a certain period of time is no guarantee that one will continue to do so for ever.

Since many Baptist Churches have reversed the trend towards theological liberalism and are becoming more theologically conservative, there have been a lot of shake-ups in individual congregations and seminaries. There were several articles, for instance, in the 90s about the purge of liberal theologians and female professors (who were also generally theologically liberal) from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary when Dr. Al Mohler took over. The change in direction in the Southern Baptist Convention in particular caused a few regional Baptist associations to go independent or join with more liberal Baptist Associations such as the ABC (American Baptist Convention).

Also, few if any churches actually pay their Sunday School teachers, this is usually an honarary position, so little if any excuse is available for the state to become directly involved. Of late, government intrusion on church/synagogue, etc. hiring and firing policies has been growing. There was for instance a much publicized case in which a church in San Francisco was sued over their decision to fire their organist when he made it known that he was gay.

Just on a personal note, I suppose our congregation would be equally susceptible to outraged sex-discrimination articles, because of our own discriminatory policies. For instance:

1) Men are not allowed to work in the nursery (this is in order to substantially reduce the possibility of sexual abuse)
2) No one is allowed to teach the Sunday School classes except for Elders, Elder Candidates, and Missionaries. Since only men are elligible for the office of Elder in our denomination, this means that women do not teach Sunday School.

- SEAGOON

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Also, few if any churches actually pay their Sunday School teachers, this is usually an honarary position, so little if any excuse is available for the state to become directly involved.

If it is an unpaid position, then I'm back to saying the government should keep their mitts off.

[Elfie]

1) Men are not allowed to work in the nursery (this is in order to substantially reduce the possibility of sexual abuse)

I dont know many men that could handle more than 1 crying baby at a time. I know I have difficulties dealing with just one crying baby.

When they start crying, I just want them to stop, the sooner the better imo. Check their diapers for land mines/swamps, try to feed them, try to burp them, hold them, if all that doesnt work I am lost and off to their mother they go.

[Chairboy]

Keeping men out of daycare to "Reduce the possibility of sexual abuse" is asinine, btw.

Why not prevent male congregants from receiving services along with women to reduce the possibility of rape?

What kind of world does the person who makes that rule live in?  It must be a terrible, terrible, dark place.

[Toad]

Separation? Here's an interesting read of the ORIGINAL DRAFT with changes from the man that coined the phrase.

It would seem helpful to understand what was actually meant by "a wall of separation between Church & State".


 Jefferson's Original Draft

[Goomba]

First, I don't see the relevance of separation of Church and State here, except as a statement to the absurdity and danger of theocracy.

This is precisely why I have no use for organized religion.  54 years of dedication to her faith and the children of her congregation, and one morning some stone-age nitwit comes along and tells her God doesn't want her to teach the faith to children.

Think on that....54 years of service.

I swear people are losing their minds.

However, Goon has a valid point that association is voluntary, and nothing is guaranteed.  Doesn't excuse heartless stupidity, though.

I would not be surprised if that congregation is soon short one member.

As for keeping men out of daycare to avoid the likelihood of sexual abuse: This is, in my personal opinion, misguided, highly prejudicial and completely discriminatory.  Are we to accept the premise that women are incapable of committing sexual abuse and men are some kind of near-animal always on the verge of pedophilia?  Or perhaps men are somehow more prone to such an act?  Absurd in the extreme.  I'm surprised it hasn't resulted in a lawsuit.  If these are paid positions, I'd suggest that the likelihood of such a suit in the future is very, very high.

I'd suggest some reading on some of the latest female schoolteachers caught with their hands in the pants of a student, then tell me again how the children are safer with only women around.

(Don't get me wrong, Goon...it's your congregation and you folks can do as you see fit.  Not my say-so.  I just cannot get behind what I perceive to be misguided and antiquated thinking.)

[lukster]

Your outrage flies in the face of facts Goomba.

"Males vs. females as child molesters

Of a sample of 4,007 men and women who admit to molesting a child 13 years old or younger, 99 percent were male and 1 percent were female."

http://www.stopchildmolestation.org/pages/study3.html

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by midnight Target
If anyone is staunchly for separating church and state, they must also go along with the decision of the Baptists.. no matter how much it makes your skin crawl.

I'd have to agree

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Toad
Separation? Here's an interesting read of the ORIGINAL DRAFT with changes from the man that coined the phrase.

It would seem helpful to understand what was actually meant by "a wall of separation between Church & State".


 Jefferson's Original Draft

Hardly a recent discovery
that Draft was a letter to a church.
The entire reason he wrote that letter was to alleviate concerns they had that there would be a Church of the Us as there was a church of England

That letter is however where most people misquote the Consitution as saying a Seperation of Church and State.


"Myth #1: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is the basis for separation of church and state

Some misguided people try to claim that this quote from Thomas Jefferson establishes the "separation of church and state" that we now have today:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State". 1

The first problem with that assertion is that this quote is not from an official government document.  The second is that it was Jefferson's original intent that ]this meant that the church was to be protected from the government, not the reverse (which is the case today).  



 A stained glass replica of a painting of the first Continental Congress in 1774 depicts the entire congress in fervent prayer



Benjamin Franklin is widely regarded to be among the least religious of the founding fathers.  However, his speech given to Congress on June 28, 1787 asking that Congress have a prayer every morning before conducting business was overtly religious in nature.  The text of this speech can be viewed at the Library of Congress's web site at these links:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=001/llfr001.db&recNum=481&itemLink=r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr001134))%230010474&linkText=1[/URL

[Elfie]

Dred, afaik, documents like the one referenced in this thread are used to determine what the intent of the founding fathers was on various constitutional issues including the Bill of Rights.

[DREDIOCK]

Yea and?

[DREDIOCK]

A thought.

Actually I had this same thought the last time this debate came up.

Here we are arguing the perception of the  so called "separation clause"

A subject that keeps getting argued back and forth in the supreme court.

If they cant settle it there. I doubt very much we will here LOL

One thing to note though
I've seen claims that Jefferson was not a religious man. And point to documents isupporting as such
Others caim he was and point to documents supporting that claim also

Saw an interview with a historian not to long ago. I wish I could remember his name.
He made sense of it all.
He explained

Seems Jefferson throughout his life was actually a flip flopper on the subject  of religeon himself.
Sometimes very religeous. Sometimes not.

Much like many of us today are

[Toad]

That is exactly the point.

Most people have no idea what the Constitution actually says about government and religion and the meaning of what was written.

They cite Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists without reading the whole thing and, IMO more importantly, the revisions that Jefferson made that show what he was trying to convey.

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State.

Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that."

Clearly, as he first wrote, Jefferson is most focused on reassuring them that their religious rights shall never be infringed upon by the government.

Quite a bit different from the interpretation today. But the..what the heck would Jefferson know about the intent of the Constitution, right?