Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on August 23, 2006, 03:31:27 AM
-
This is why you keep church and state seperate.
WATERTOWN, N.Y. - The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job - outside of the church.
The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.
The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."
The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.
"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.
Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.
"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."
Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met.
In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.
Ah, those wacky Baptists. I wonder if he will reinstate stoning as well?
-
So no ladies can work there, but i bet killers and rapists etc that have done their time and found jesus could.
awesome
-
I know RPM is trying to get a rise out of us. But this isn't all that amazing or concern worthy.
-
why not?
lets discuss.. (and yes, im having a slow day)
-
I am having trouble seeing the relavance of the seperation of church and state in this case.
I don't think we have had a relevant case of seperation of church and state ever coming up tho.
lazs
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
So no ladies can work there, but i bet killers and rapists etc that have done their time and found jesus could.
awesome
That's quite a leap to go from not letting women teach men to letting no women work there. This woman was a Sunday school teacher, they usually do not pay Sunday school teachers. Just clarifying the "work" part.
I'm not condoning their action but it hardly compares to "stoning" women which is still practiced by some religions. http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html
-
I don't see a problem in a religious group acting upon it's beliefs if they don't hurt anyone else in the process. Of course they should be able to choose who "works" for them.
-
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.
MT, I agree. It's just that one church body, though. Not The Baptist Church, as a whole. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, there are at least several Baptist denominations.
BTW, this preacher's ruling does make my skin crawl, and I'm a Bible-believing Christian.
-
You wanna talk some serious discrimination:
"The penalty for adultery under Article 83 of the penal code, called the Law of Hodoud is flogging (100 lashes of the whip) for unmarried male and female offenders. Married offenders may be punished by stoning regardless of their gender, but the method laid down for a man involves his burial up to his waist, and for a woman up to her neck (article 102). The law provides that if a person who is to be stoned manages to escape, he or she will be allowed to go free. Since it is easier for a man to escape, this discrimination literally becomes a matter of life and death."
-
To hell with Iran.
-
Yep, the religions can do what they want, just so long as they don't push their agenda on other folks. I don't think anyone is calling for any sort of government intervention (I get the vibe that's what Lazs is suggesting), that'd be completely inappropriate, just saying "this sucks".
I'd hope anyone choosing a religion would research the church/books/history first to make sure they're getting what they expect. Like buying a car/choosing a flight instructor, etc.
-
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 think it depends on whether she was an employee or not. AFAIK, anti-discrimination laws apply to churches just like any other business.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think it depends on whether she was an employee or not. AFAIK, anti-discrimination laws apply to churches just like any other business.
I know of no Baptist church that pays their Sunday school teachers solely for being a Sunday school teacher. Sometimes paid employees do serve in that capacity but only voluntarily. While I don't know about all Baptist churches I do have more than a little experience with them.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I know of no Baptist church that pays their Sunday school teachers solely for being a Sunday school teacher.
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.
-
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!
;)
-
Yea, I kinda assumed she was just a Sunday school volunteer.
-
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
-
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.
-
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. :D
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html)
-
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.)
-
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
-
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
-
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 (http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html)
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
(http://www.creationists.org/7wxrt/foundingfathers.jpg)
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 (http://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)
-
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.
-
Yea and?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :)
-
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.
-
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
-
You can wordsmith all you like, but the separation of the State from a recognized church is a good thing. Period.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
she must be silent
One can only dream. :)
-
Arggghh
-
Hello Dredlock,
Originally posted by 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.
We hear about the cases of female teachers molesting young boys for a number of reasons, because they are atypical, but mostly because of the prurient interest they attract from the audience (the typical male reaction is that those kids were lucky, they got a starring role in a adolescent sexual fantasy). The reality however is that statistically, these high profile cases that play so well in the media aren't even worth quantifying. Of the over 130,000 reported cases of child molestation that occur in the United States yearly (and a liberal estimate is that only 31% of incidents are reported) the media "darling" cases featuring attractive younger women that play on the air are less than half a dozen.
The reality is that 89% of child molestation cases involve someone well known and trusted by the child and that between 96-99% (depending on which study you look at) involve men. That the majority of victims are very young and in the cases of women molesting children it is slightly more likely to be a female victim (54%) who is molested. What that means is that about 1 in 5 females in America will be molested at least once before they reach the age of 18. So yes Chair, it is a very dark and sin sick world we are living in.
- SEAGOON
-
100% of priests involved in child molestation were men... i guess they better outlaw male priests.
100% of child molestation victims are children... we better keep them away from all other people.
100% of idiotic statistics are used for idiotic purposes..
-
Hi Chair,
Originally posted by 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.
I don't sense this conversation is going to go anywhere, especially because for whatever reason you are having a highly emotive reaction to the whole subject. I also really don't see much point in making this a major topic of discussion on the board. So unless you have specific questions you want answers to, I'm going to make this my final post on the topic.
We obviously have very different worldviews that are coloring our discussion, I do not view people as basically good and inherently trustworthy. I view people as naturally fallen and inclined towards sin from birth. The Savior I serve came into a world he described as "lost", "dark", "sinful" and he did so to free men from bondage to sin and spiritual death. During his ministry on earth he met a lot of people who assumed that they were "well" and had no problems with sin. He attempted, sometimes in vain to show them that this was not the case, and that the only people He could save were those who, unlike the Pharisees, knew that they were sinners:
Jesus answered and said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance."
I too really can't do much to help someone until, like me, their eyes are opened to the true condition of their hearts and like the Publican in Christ's parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector they are enabled to say "'God, be merciful to me a sinner!'" (Luke 18:13)
Anyway, let me close with a few personal notes. Although I've never actually cheated on my wife, I don't inherently assume that I am so strong and good that the possibility of falling prey to temptation doesn't exist. Therefore I build as many safeguards into my ministry as possible. I have an absolute policy never to meet alone with women for counseling or pastoral visitation for instance. This is in keeping with the counsel of the Bible which reminds us that while God raises up men and equips them for the ministry he counsels us to watch and pray lest we fall into temptation and reminds us that "Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall." Personally it has been my experience that the vast majority of "falls" in the ministry came from simply believing "that can't happen to me."
I have seen the long term spiritual impact caused by molestation, including the awful sorrow caused in the family of a friend who is an elder in another church whose daughter was molested in the church nursery last year. He confided that he even initially struggled with a desire to simply kill the man responsible, and it was only through a lot of prayer and crying out to the Lord that he was delivered from being consumed by hate towards that fellow. That is something that I never want to see happen in my own church.
I have also counseled plenty of women who were molested as well as men, and in most cases there are lingering problems to this day. There were almost inevitably cases of molestation in the background of people struggling with sexual sins of their own. I should also note that being a congregation made up of saved sinners, we have convicted felons in the congregation, and the catalog of felonies has included child molestation. Despite that in 4 years of running a very busy nursery, we have by God's grace had no reported or suspected incidents of negligence or abuse.
So in any event, you may see our policies as an overreaction, I on the other hand have been taught by experience that even one incident is too many.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
100% of priests involved in child molestation were men... i guess they better outlaw male priests.
100% of child molestation victims are children... we better keep them away from all other people.
100% of idiotic statistics are used for idiotic purposes..
Who said anything about outlawing anything? Does a private organization not have the right to protect itself? Any man miffed at not being allowed nursery duty should be suspect imo.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Any man miffed at not being allowed nursery duty should be suspect imo.
And anyone who objects to being accused of a crime must be guilty, yes?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
And anyone who objects to being accused of a crime must be guilty, yes?
I don't know how you derived that from anything I've said.
Do you know any male who enjoys babysitting a bunch of screaming babies or toddlers that aren't his own? Or maybe even if they are his? ;)
-
You said that any man who is 'miffed' at not being allowed to work in a nursery should automatically be suspected. This is the exact same thing as saying that someone who tries to defend themself after being accused of a crime must automatically be guilty. This is, like Seagoon's church policy regarding daycare, asinine and an example of a logical fallacy.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You said that any man who is 'miffed' at not being allowed to work in a nursery should automatically be suspected. This is the exact same thing as saying that someone who tries to defend themself after being accused of a crime must automatically be guilty. This is, like Seagoon's church policy regarding daycare, asinine and an example of a logical fallacy.
It's not the "exact" same thing at all. There's no presumption of guilt only suspicion. When it comes to molesting children men are guilty of it far more often than women. Most men don't especially like taking care of other people's babies or young children. I'm not saying that all of these men are child molestors but the odds aren't favorable. You're foolish if you trust children alone with them.
-
And that, sir, is a classic Ad-Hominem argument.
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_Association
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This is, like Seagoon's church policy regarding daycare, asinine and an example of a logical fallacy.
Just pull out the atheist placard and start picketing and get it over with.
I don`t see how you could be objective on any church policy one way or the other.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Just pull out the aetheist placard and start picketing and get it over with.
I don`t see how you could be objective on any church policy one way or the other.
Once again, Ad hominem, specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial
-
Nice placard, but the lettering should be red.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Chair,
I have seen the long term spiritual impact caused by molestation, including the awful sorrow caused in the family of a friend who is an elder in another church whose daughter was molested in the church nursery last year. He confided that he even initially struggled with a desire to simply kill the man responsible, and it was only through a lot of prayer and crying out to the Lord that he was delivered from being consumed by hate towards that fellow. That is something that I never want to see happen in my own church.
- SEAGOON
It is not unreasonable he felt that way.
After all Didnt Jesus himself say something like
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Personally when it comes to child molestation.
I think JC had the right idea.
Hmmmm Question though HE said
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me"
what about the ones that dont beleive in him?
Seagoon you are good.
While not a holy roller myself by any streatch of the imagination.
The next time I drive donw to Fla to visit my mother and I pass through the town of my birth "Fayettville NC"
Im gonna have to stop off and see you.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
And that, sir, is a classic Ad-Hominem argument.
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_Association
Hardly, it's called minimizing risk. When it comes to your own children, if you have any, I bet you felt you couldn't be too careful. Let others enjoy the same protectiveness towards their offspring. Of course the caring and responsible ones will regardless of what you or I think.
-
I had hoped to stay out of the argument from here on in, but I feel like I need to hop in to clarify one thing.
We do not forbid men from working in the nursery because we suspect that any of them are or might be Child Molesters (unless they have a previous conviction for that particular offense). We forbid men to work in the nursery because it is a simple expedient that reduces the possibility of child molestation to almost zero. In doing this, no one's rights are affected or infringed. No one, male or female, has a right to work as an unpaid volunteer in our nursery and as the duly elected governing body of the church the session has a right to determine who will and who won't be allowed to serve there.
If someone in the church thinks the policy is "sexist" they have a right to speak to the elders of the church, and even to file a formal complaint. In fact, if their complaint is formally denied by the session, they can actually appeal the decision to the regional presbytery and if they win the appeal the decision can actually be overturned at that level, or if the decision of the church is sustained at that level they can actually carry the appeal to the General Assembly and have it heard by the Standing Judicial Commission of the entire denomination. If the GA sustains the original decision of the Session, they are still in no way "trapped." They can easily transfer their membership to another church where men are free to volunteer to work in the nursery and thus gain the long coveted right to change other people's children's dirty diapers.
In any event, you can call me "assinine" as much as you wish, my thinking here is driven by reality and the desire to do all that I can to keep our youngest members safe. I find it amazing that in a country discussing the not so singular case of John Mark Karr ad infinitum that the decision of a small church not to put men in a nursery when we don't need to and are under no obligation biblical or civil to do so would be considered unreasonable.
But then again, you'll recall I guessed such a decision would produce similar outrage. :insert old rolleyes smiley here:
- SEAGOON
-
It's a prudent policy. Call me an ad homenimist if you will but I think anyone objecting to this either never had kids or has some ulterior motive for attacking this policy.
-
Originally posted by lukster
It's a prudent policy. Call me an ad homenimist if you will but I think anyone objecting to this either never had kids or has some ulterior motive for attacking this policy.
When you consider the fact that men are turned on by what they see, being in a nursery is a needless temptation for many. Personally, if I was a member of Seagoon's congregation I would thank him for 1) looking out for all the childrens safety, 2) For making it impossible for me to serve in a position that would require changing dirty diapers and listening to 20 screaming babies.
I have 3 children now, the youngest just got potty trained. She still wears a diaper at night but during the day she uses the toilet. I cant begin to explain the joy I feel at the thought of NEVER having to change a *loaded* diaper again.
-
Originally posted by lukster
When it comes to your own children, if you have any, I bet you felt you couldn't be too careful. Let others enjoy the same protectiveness towards their offspring. Of course the caring and responsible ones will regardless of what you or I think.
Fantastic, another ad hominem! If I didn't know better, I'd think you were deliberately staging demonstrations. I have two children, for your information.
When it comes to my children, I use judgement based on the situation, not stereotypes or hysterical hand wringing.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Call me an ad homenimist if you will but I think anyone objecting to this either never had kids or has some ulterior motive for attacking this policy.
Well, since I _do_ have children, it seems clear that you're now calling me a child molester. Is there an alternative interpretation of what you just wrote?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Well, since I _do_ have children, it seems clear that you're now calling me a child molester. Is there an alternative interpretation of what you just wrote?
One alternative would be that you enjoy criticizing religion or christianity in particular. I am not calling you a child molestor but I think you knew that.
-
Originally posted by lukster
One alternative would be that you enjoy criticizing religion or christianity in particular. I am not calling you a child molestor but I think you knew that.
No offense intended Chairboy......you do seem to take joy in your responses to some of the threads here that deal with Christianity and its views. Again, no offense intended, just an observation.
-
Well, "no offense", but my opinions on the "No men allowed in daycare" would be no different if it was at a business, government office, or some sort of "atheist church" (whatever that might look like). It _DOES NOT MATTER_.
This is why this is classic ad-hominem and completely unsupportable. Please argue the matter on the basis of facts.
-
Wasn't talking about just this thread Chairboy. I was also as polite as I could possibly be considering I only have text to communicate with.
I dont understand why *no male attendants allowed in the nursery* has you so up in arms anyways. It's not like you go to church, much less Seagoon's church.
I don't think there is a church I have ever been to that had anything but females tending to the little ones. I also dont see a problem with it.
You are arguing for something that the vast majority of men dont want. Dont get me wrong, babies are all cute and cuddly and are fun to hold, until they drop a land mine in their diaper or start bawling.
There has been many times with my daughters that I couldnt get them to calm down but there mother could very quickly. Mothers have that special touch when it comes to comforting the little ones.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I dont understand why *no male attendants allowed in the nursery* has you so up in arms anyways. It's not like you go to church, much less Seagoon's church.
I don't go to church, but I'd fight to the death to protect your right to attend.
I think pretty poorly of someone who ONLY cares about rights and justice that apply directly to them, I sure hope you don't fall in this category and I certainly hope you don't think that I do.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I don't go to church, but I'd fight to the death to protect your right to attend.
I think pretty poorly of someone who ONLY cares about rights and justice that apply directly to them, I sure hope you don't fall in this category and I certainly hope you don't think that I do.
My only point about you not attending church was......this issue doesnt affect you. I'm pretty surprised that an Atheist is so upset by descions made by a church for reasons that only protect the little ones.
No male here is upset because they cant tend the little ones in Seagoon's church. (With the exception of you, no offense, just saying.) So you really dont need to go to bat for a *right* none of us want anyways. :)
It isnt a *right* to be able to tend babies in a nursery. Volunteering at anything is a priviledge imo, NOT a right. I have never seen a paid employee in a church nursery, unless the pastor is visiting the nursery. Everyone tending the littles ones was a volunteer, w/o exception.
Churches are private institutions and as such, can make their own rules in regards to who can/cant tend the babies, teach sunday school etc etc. Many (if not all) of those descions are based on that particular churches beliefs.....not mine, not yours, not luksters, not even Skuzzy's. ;)
-
Elfie, my opinion stands whether it's a church or a business. It's up to you to decide if you understand that or not.
I said it in my original post, and I'll say it now. The reasoning behind Seagoon's church's policy is asinine. Nobody has been able to refute that yet, the best y'all can come up with is "Chairboy doesn't go to church, so he doesn't get an opinion on this". The fact that my opinion has nothing to do with the church seems opaque to you, hence the ad hominem links. Have you read the definitions I posted?
Here's a challenge, actually read the link and tell me why the "No men in the nursery" rule is not ad hominem, or agree with me that it is. Leave my atheism out of the picture and try arguing the facts. I'm being straight with you, I ask you to return the favor.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Elfie, my opinion stands whether it's a church or a business. It's up to you to decide if you understand that or not.
I said it in my original post, and I'll say it now. The reasoning behind Seagoon's church's policy is asinine. Nobody has been able to refute that yet, the best y'all can come up with is "Chairboy doesn't go to church, so he doesn't get an opinion on this". The fact that my opinion has nothing to do with the church seems opaque to you, hence the ad hominem links. Have you read the definitions I posted?
Here's a challenge, actually read the link and tell me why the "No men in the nursery" rule is not ad hominem, or agree with me that it is. Leave my atheism out of the picture and try arguing the facts. I'm being straight with you, I ask you to return the favor.
I am being straight with you.
Buisiness or church, both are private and can make their own rules to a degree. Really not much different than this bbs, HTC makes the rules, we abide by them. If we dont like the rules, we can find another bbs to post on.
This link showing child molestation rates is, imo, reason enough to not allow men to work in nurseries.
http://www.stopchildmolestation.org/pages/study3.html
That article was linked before in this thread. I did read your link, and dont agree that Seagoon's rule is ad hominem. Seagoon's rule is intended to reduce the risk of molestation as much as humanly possible. It is a FACT that men are far, far more likely to be the perpetrators of sexual molestation. Women are perpetrators also, but they are very rare in comparison to the numbers of male perpetrators. Nothing at all asinine about that.
I never said you dont get an opinion on this.
You are taking up a fight for a *right* that the vast majority of us men dont want anyways. /shrug.
-
You're just being stubborn Chairboy. If you really insist I'll try to find you a church that will let you work their nursery. I'm sure there's one somewhere. Hope you get baby poop all over ya. :p
-
Hope you get baby poop all over ya.
That is sooooooo guhroooooss!! How could you wish that on him? :D
-
I dont even see why the nursery issue needs to be about any decision but a financial one. The insurance company would require background checks and records to be maintained for anyone working in there (require you to spend money), and they would more than likely still charge a higher rate for the insurance.
So the question becomes Chairboy, if this were your church, would you be willing to pay extra money out in order to make your moral stand against this profiling, or take the simple expedient of only using those workers deemed "safe"?
Note I'm not making any determination of whether one gender is "safer" than another in this role, simply using the insurance company's definition.
On the issue of the woman from the Baptist church being fired, well, you can throw names all you like. It doesnt change the fact that for many years, popular Christian denominations have been allowing changes to their rules to "update" themselves to fit in with popular public opinion. Baptists, for the most part, pretty much hold that the Bible IS the Word of God. Its not something you can change. In this, there are similarities to the arguments being waged over the Constitution, some feeling it is necessary to "update" it to change with the times, that a document that is 200+ years old cannot possibly be relevant to today's society. Many conservative branches of Christian denominations have never been 100% comfortable with changes made to "update" their congregations. I happen to agree with them. I dont necessarily agree with the decision of this particular Baptist church, nor their interpretations of Scripture, but they certainly have the right as church leaders duly elected to try to bring their church back more in line with biblical teachings.
To quote the great Charles Spurgeon:
We shall not adjust our Bible to the age; but before we have done with it, by God's grace, we shall adjust the age to the Bible.
Or in this case, adjust our church to the Bible. I see nothing wrong and much right with that effort. I think they just got a little overzealous in the matter of Sunday School teachers.
-
Ya know it's quite possible that the woman was just too old to continue teaching and the part about women teaching men was just an excuse to fill the spot with someone younger allowing her to save a little face.
-
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'm not sure anyone said otherwise.
As for wordsmithing, you'll have to take that up with TJ.
And, any forthcoming denials/strawmen/red herrings aside, it seems most people have no idea what TJ meant when he wrote the part about "building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."
-
Originally posted by lukster
Call me an ad homenimist if you will
It will pass. It`s the "I`ve found a new phrase for the O`club" fad. It`s all the latest rage . This one has about ran it`s course since it is being overused by the Webster archivers. When the horse falls on it`s face from being over ridden , it will be time to head down to the Webster wine cellar and dust off the cobwebs in search of something new and chic. :)
Church policy is and should be left up to the church members and it`s leaders.
It`s not anyone else`s business, no matter how scared they are of religion.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I'm not sure anyone said otherwise.
As for wordsmithing, you'll have to take that up with TJ.
And, any forthcoming denials/strawmen/red herrings aside, it seems most people have no idea what TJ meant when he wrote the part about "building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State."
I think this guy understands it pretty well:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210302,00.html