Woman Fired for Being a Female.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yea and?

Wouldnt the founding fathers intent on the various constitutional issues help to determine exactly what they meant when they wrote the constitution and bill of rights? And in turn would that not help us to understand those documents better?


Just an example here:


The NRA uses sources like these to back their claim that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right. (Think National Guard.) They base their arguements on documents from various individuals that show the intent of the founding fathers in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

Hope that made sense heh.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Elfie
Wouldnt the founding fathers intent on the various constitutional issues help to determine exactly what they meant when they wrote the constitution and bill of rights? And in turn would that not help us to understand those documents better?


Just an example here:


The NRA uses sources like these to back their claim that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right. (Think National Guard.) They base their arguements on documents from various individuals that show the intent of the founding fathers in regards to the 2nd Amendment.

Hope that made sense heh.

It made perfect sense the first time you said it LOL

I could go there but I already did that once about a year ago and dont feel like looking up the thread with all the examples I listed.

And I sure as hell dont feel like looking up all the links I listed them from.

Thing is, the so called "Seperation clause" was originally intended to protect the church/s from the government. NOT the other way around.


-------------------------EDIT---------------------------

I want ot point out that I am not a particularly religeous person. Im not an avid church go-er in fact I really dont feel comfortable in a "church"
While I am spiritual in my own way
I pretty much have a faily low opinion on most of your organised religeons
And I sure as hell aint no right winger

As such I have nothing to gain by my claims or views on the subject.
I view them simply as they were in my opinion intended to be.
I have found little to convince me they were intended to be otherwise.
I HAVE however found those original intentions to be twisted by politics from their IMO obvious original intent.
Particularly over the last 40 years

[Toad]

The way it was written the Constitution and Bill of Rights made government a servant of the people.

Somehow that is getting twisted 180 degrees; now the people serve the government.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Toad
The way it was written the Constitution and Bill of Rights made government a servant of the people.

Somehow that is getting twisted 180 degrees; now the people serve the government.

Amen to that brother LMAO

sorry, couldnt resist.

[Elfie]

I'm not sure why you typed *Yea and?* if you understood what/why I posted what I did? heh I think something went over my head.

[Elfie]

Originally posted by Toad
The way it was written the Constitution and Bill of Rights made government a servant of the people.

Somehow that is getting twisted 180 degrees; now the people serve the government.

The Gov't *should* be a servant of the people, there to do our will, not the other way around. I agree it is getting twisted 180 degrees.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Elfie
I'm not sure why you typed *Yea and?* if you understood what/why I posted what I did? heh I think something went over my head.

actually upon further review. I think it is possibly I who misunderstood what you were getting at

[midnight Target]

You can wordsmith all you like, but the separation of the State from a recognized church is a good thing. Period.

[rpm]

You guys are taking the "chuch and state" quote a bit far. What my meaning was, this moron should be kept out of government lest he try to put some of "God's will" into law like the Muslims. No ankle showing or you are stoned, no backtalking a man or you are whipped, ect.

Seagoon, only men with children to prevent the possibility of abuse? What kind of crack are your elders smoking?

[lukster]

Originally posted by midnight Target
You can wordsmith all you like, but the separation of the State from a recognized church is a good thing. Period.

I agree. Too bad the state has been over stepping it's bounds by trampling the free speech of some. I won't once again dredge up the recent evidence until a higher court has ruled.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by midnight Target
You can wordsmith all you like, but the separation of the State from a recognized church is a good thing. Period.

but thats just it. "A" Recognised church as being the officail church of the USA
As in a particular national church such as the Church of England.
Whos abuses and persecution they were trying to avoid

It DOESNT mean the church cant be involved in the government.
Just that the government cant have control of the churches or dictate that there is one national Church.

The way it was intended. IMO you very well could have Islamn involved in the government. But consitutionally the government Still cannot dictate Islam as the national religeon. Nor could it dictate that you have to worship Islam

Again. it does NOT protect the government from the church.
It does however protect the church from the goverment

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by rpm
You guys are taking the "chuch and state" quote a bit far. What my meaning was, this moron should be kept out of government lest he try to put some of "God's will" into law like the Muslims. No ankle showing or you are stoned, no backtalking a man or you are whipped, ect.

Seagoon, only men with children to prevent the possibility of abuse? What kind of crack are your elders smoking?

See thats the point.

This guy could very well become president.
HE still could not dictate such things under the clause even if he was so inclined

Quite a brilliant concept actually

[Seagoon]

Hello Chair, et al,

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

The policy regarding men not working in the nursery was crafted after considerable study of the subject. This included conversations with our insurance company, 2 books on the subject of safeguarding one's church from sexual abuse, one independent study drawn up by a church that had just dealt with an incident, and a several discussions with individuals who have worked most of their lives in the fields of child psychology/development and general education.

Child molestation in the church extends considerably beyond the Catholic priests who have been in the news of late and is a growing problem. Statistically, the overwhelming majority of these molesters are men. In my experiencing of counseling people molested as children in their churches or schools, all of the molesters have been men. Additionally, in speaking with other counselors, I have yet to hear of one case of a nursery related molestation incident involving a woman.

Our insurance company made it clear, that if we were going to have men working in the nursery, then we would need to implement a policy of background checks and continuous 2+ adult coverage. Our insurance representative however indicated that in almost 20 years of dealing with molestation/harassment oriented litigation involving churches, he had yet to deal with a single case where the accused was a woman. There had been negligence cases involving women, but never molestation.

That is not to say that women are not subject to sin, or capable of molesting a child. However, like rape, it tends statistically to be an almost exclusively male crime, for instance in our area out of 250 registered sex offenders, 5 were women.

And RPM, our Children's Sunday School always has 2 teachers present at all times.

- SEAGOON

[Chairboy]

Perhaps this dangerous creature "man" you speak of should not be trusted to lead the congregation, then, either.  In fact, the elders, all men, should step down (they are in positions of great influence, if they cannot be trusted with children, then how can they be trusted with souls?) so that responsible women can take their places.

[DREDIOCK]

Is it that all the molesters were men?
Orrr  Boys dont complain as much when molested by women? Thus we dont hear about it as much

Female Teachers having sex with their male students seems to be on the upswing. Or is far more common then we previously thought.

ITs gettign to the point where almost monthly we are hearing a new story of a female teacher getting caught giving special life skill lessons to their male students.

Strangly enough. I dont ever remember hearing of the student complaining.
Only the parents.

Come to think of it I dont ever recall hearing of an adult male complaining his female teacher molested him.
Come to think of it. Unless the teacher looked like Maude
I wouldnt have complained if it happened to me either. LOL

Im not sure I agree that men with families are any safer though.
Many male molesters have families.

The safest way to me would be to never have a single (as in numeral) adult allowed to be alone with a child.
It shuld be two adults, preferably male and female not married or in a romantic relationship with one another