Little Girl Shunned in the Name of God [Archive]

belladonna

05-21-2002, 08:52 AM

Little girl expelled (http://www.mycfnow.com/sh/news/stories/nat-news-146301320020515-200548.html) because mom’s a stripper.
Will someone please explain to me what part of shunning a little girl because of her mother’s choices even remotely resembles “god’s will”?
I'm aware that because it is a private institution, this school is allowed to handle these things however they see fit. I am disgusted, however, that this child's interests seem to be last on the list when it comes to priorites. Even if the mother bowed to the schools demands, quit her job, went back to teaching sunday school (now if that isn't primo porno material, I don't know what is!) will this child ever live down the stigma of being a "sinner's child" in this environment?
I especially liked how
…that (paying her daughter's tuition by stripping) became a problem this week when a parent at her daughter's kindergarten showed the school some Internet pictures of Silvas.
And the child of that parent, who was daring to >gasp< view pornography, was immediately expelled as well. Right…?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Gorgon Heap

05-21-2002, 09:19 AM

They let her back. It was on the news this morning.

belladonna

05-21-2002, 09:28 AM

Really? How was it resolved? Did mom quit or what?

Revtim

05-21-2002, 09:50 AM

http://www.sltrib.com/05212002/nation_w/738726.htm

The girl was let back in for last 3 weeks of school, and the mother agreed not to strip for those weeks.

Monty

05-21-2002, 09:52 AM

The mother was offered financial assistance by the church & school, IIRC, and it was her decision to take the chance that her child would get expelled due to her, the mother, not honouring the agreement she, the mother, signed when she enrolled the child in the parochial school.

Your rant is against the wrong individual.

belladonna

05-21-2002, 10:18 AM

Thanks Rev.

Monty--I see what you're saying, and like I said the school is of course allowed to do as they please. However, I guess my problem is that I don't think stripping is immoral. It's a legal, widely accepted form of employment. and I hate to think this child is being taught that her mommy's bad for doing it.

Expulsion is an act which punishes the child for the parent's deeds. I wouldn't want to be fired because my son acted up somehow, and I have way more control over my son than this child has over her mother. Unless this "moral code" specifically lists acceptable areas of employment I don't see how the mother is in the wrong here. Obviously, Mom cares about her child if she has quit to accommodate the girl's education--that shows me she's not really the type who deserves a rant. Unless you think stripping is inherently wrong--which is, of course, a matter of opinion.
Also--if they have these "moral contracts" I'm seriously interested in where the line is drawn, and who draws it. Obviously someone found out about her stripping by visiting the club/viewing porn online or whatever, doesn't that count as immoral as well? My concern is that these clauses can be used to single out people who are considered unworthy, while ignoring similar or related transgressions on the part of others. What other professions would warrent expulsion? What if Daddy's an executioner? Or Mom works the roullette wheel? How about an editor for a fetish mag? Or a clerk in a liquor store? I don't like basing decisions like this on such nebulous standards.

Weirddave

05-21-2002, 10:34 AM

The school is a private institution, they have the absolute right to do whatever they want, I don't think anyone is contesting that. I think what bugs most people, what bugs me, certainly, is that these people seem more concerned with upholding their concept of "sin" and moral outrage than they do with what's best for the child. ( Tell me, Christians and bible scholars, is exotic dancing prohibited anywhere in the bible? I don't remember it being proscribed, but it's been a long time since I read the book. At best I would say it's an interpetation of biblical rules, nowhere did it say the mother was hooking or anything like that, she's just a dancer)

What really bothers me is that these 'Christians', people who profess to be followers of Christ's teachings and examples, are reacting exactly the opposite of the way Christ did when he was confronted by a similar situation:

3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
7But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
John 8:3-11, NIV

Bunch of hypocrites.

wring

05-21-2002, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Monty
The mother was offered financial assistance by the church & school, IIRC, and it was her decision to take the chance that her child would get expelled due to her, the mother, not honouring the agreement she, the mother, signed when she enrolled the child in the parochial school.

Your rant is against the wrong individual.

Really? according to this (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/20/stripper.mom.ap/index.html) Mom had signed an agreement that stating they agree with the church's "Christian Commitment/Philosophy," which requires weekly church attendance and stipulates "a Christian learning structure that involves the entire family."

I don't see anything specific about disallowed employment for the parents. and yet, the article goes on The Rev. Rick Cole, pastor of the Sacramento church, said Silvas broke that agreement by working as a nude dancer

Can you provide substance for your 'IIRC'? Seems to me that the rant is aimed correctly, barring further documentation.

Monty

05-21-2002, 11:07 AM

bella & wring:

I don't think that stripping is immoral, either. But, it appears, the church sponsoring the school holds that "immodesty" is immoral and thus stripping fits their definition of immodesty.

Rest assured that once I have children, I shan't enroll them in such a narrow-minded institution.

Actually, I think it would've been grand had all the other parents yanked their children out of the school and boycotted church services over the event. Of course, that would never happen. <sigh>

The Flying Dutchman

05-21-2002, 11:08 AM

Hypocricy is an easy charge to throw at Christian entities, primarily because it is so difficult to live up to the teachings of Christ. Anyone turn the other cheek lately?

I'm with Monty on who should be flamed here, ( although I'm not without sin myself ). The terms of an agreement have been breeched by the mother, and the consequence of relieving the school's obligation under the enrollment agreement can only be terminating the education. If the mother failed to provide the lucre for the child's education, no one here would object to the same outcome.

Tranquilis

05-21-2002, 11:09 AM

Well, not precisely similar, Dave, as no one is actually accusing this woman of adultery, merely of showing her skin for profit. Still, I think you've got the spirit correct, and I agree.

I too, would like to know where in her contract it specified what manner of work she might choose, or not choose. For that matter, aren't contracts regulating what a person may or may not do for a living considered unenforcable, and therefore null and void? Can we get a lawyer in here? Oh, Zappo, where are yooooo..?

Monty

05-21-2002, 11:16 AM

Dang, grien, you forgot to call "lucre" "filty lucre." :grin:

wring

05-21-2002, 12:32 PM

Monty - my point was that in your prior posting, it seemed as you believed that the woman had been told specifically 'strip and your kid will be kicked out' ( and it was her decision to take the chance that her child would get expelled due to her, the mother, not honouring the agreement she, the mother, signed when she enrolled the child in the parochial school. and from what I see, short of making some leaps in assumptions, the woman had no prior knowledge that her occupation would be an issue. The 'agreement' from what was quoted in the paper talked of going to church and keeping a Christian learning experience at home.

Now, unless y'all want us to make assumptions about what would constitute a 'Christian learning experience at home' and how parental career decisions would factor into it, I still don't see where the woman had prior indication that her legal employment would/should cause problems.

cleosia

05-21-2002, 12:47 PM

Hypocricy is an easy charge to throw at Christian entities, primarily because it is so difficult to live up to the teachings of Christ.

The hypocrisy comes in when you slam someone for doing the same things you do, but when you do it, it's alright.

SuaSponte

05-21-2002, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Monty
The mother was offered financial assistance by the church & school, IIRC, and it was her decision to take the chance that her child would get expelled due to her, the mother, not honouring the agreement she, the mother, signed when she enrolled the child in the parochial school.

Your rant is against the wrong individual.

Well, Monty, tuition's all well and good, but who's going to pay the rent?

But anyway, bizarrely enough I agree with the church. This isn't about the kid - it's about the money. The church was being paid with money earned by what they considered immoral means. I can see them not wanting to accept it.

Hypothetical - John Gotti III seeks to enroll in a kindergarden you run. Nothing against the kid, but do you want to accept tuition money that was "earned" through drug sales, loansharking, prostitution, armed robbery, etc.?

I don't think that the church's beliefs are correct, but I think they are being true to them.

Sua

Monty

05-21-2002, 01:34 PM

wring: I don't think there was any leap or assumption made. The woman, as an active/practicing member of the church was certainly aware of their stance on modesty. And, as a stripper, she's certainly aware that there's a titillating factor involved in her immodest (although legal and indoors) display of her breasts and/or other parts.

Sua: Part of financial assistance can extend to rent.

wring

05-21-2002, 01:46 PM

au contraire, Monty - if we assume that as a member of the church, she knew the rules then it would seem to follow that since she chose that church, that school and that employment certainly she didn't see a contradiction. It's a legal employment. Or are you claiming that other than a ministers verbal, after the fact statement the church had established a specific position on stripping?

belladonna

05-21-2002, 02:39 PM

But anyway, bizarrely enough I agree with the church. This isn't about the kid - it's about the money. The church was being paid with money earned by what they considered immoral means. I can see them not wanting to accept it.

So do you think they're going to give back the $3600 or so that she's paid them up to this point? It is tainted money, and all.

Seriously--that just opens up the whole question of "acceptable occupations". Murder for hire is a definite no no, so Gotti's kid is out. But what about a research scientist who regularly kills animals? Or a woman who runs a company that exploits overseas child labor? To me, that woman would be sinning much more greviously than this chick flashing her boobs to pay the rent. So again, who decides? They apparently have no black & white specific list of prohibited professions, and what one church member sees as immoral, another might see as enterprising. It's discretionary and unfair, IMO.

OpalCat

05-21-2002, 02:45 PM

While not a Christian, I do believe in God. I never saw anything wrong with stripping when I did it. I also don't see that what she did outside the home to make money in any way violates the agreement. Most likely her daughter didn't even know what her mommy did for a living. I know that most of the dancers where I worked didn't tell their kids (not because they were ashamed, but because the kids were too young to understand). So in what way was her job interfering with her raising her kid in a Christian environment. It's not like she took the kid to work with her.

SuaSponte

05-21-2002, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by belladonna
So do you think they're going to give back the $3600 or so that she's paid them up to this point? It is tainted money, and all.
If they weren't planning to pay the money back, it does blow a big whole in my argument. Didn't see a discussion of that one way or another.

Seriously--that just opens up the whole question of "acceptable occupations". Murder for hire is a definite no no, so Gotti's kid is out. But what about a research scientist who regularly kills animals? Or a woman who runs a company that exploits overseas child labor? To me, that woman would be sinning much more greviously than this chick flashing her boobs to pay the rent. So again, who decides?

Well, that's kinda the point - the people running the school decide. If you don't want to accept money derived from sweatshops as tuition for your privately-run kindergarden, I say more power to you.

Sua

Monty

05-21-2002, 04:50 PM

Nope, wring. I'm saying the child's mother is the hypocrite. She agreed to "live a moral life" so her child could get an education at that school. (We'll leave off my opinion of what value said education from said school might actually have.) Evidently, the church in question isn't just satisfied with indoctrinating the young during the school day, but also with ensuring the young get "more of the same" at home.

Mom could've found a better school, no doubt, than one run by cretins; however, she agreed to their nebulous terms and should've either stuck by them or not whined when she didn't.

wring

05-21-2002, 05:02 PM

Monty can you pretty please demonstrate to me which 'nebulous terms' she agreed to then failed to abide by? I couldn't discern where 'stripping' was deliniated as 'unChristian home life'. and neither have you.

1. Mom agreed to go to church, and provide 'Christian home life' or whatever the wording was that I quoted above.

2. Church/school agreed to accept the daughter and take the fees.

3. Mom got a job.

4. Church apparently decided that the job wasn't ok.

I don't see where the mom's was to screen potential jobs before her church, nor have I seen evidence that the Church had officially declared certain professions to be of themselves immoral, so that this mom could then be legitimately charged with (as you do) being a hypocrite.

You appear to be making the assumption that the Church is a fundementalist one and has specific written prohibtions/sanctions/ etc. regarding public nudity. I'm not making that assumption.

and, unless the church had some specific publicized position on public nudity, then the woman in question had no specific reason to believe that her legitimate occupation would cause any problem.

beagledave

05-21-2002, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by OpalCat
While not a Christian, I do believe in God. I never saw anything wrong with stripping when I did it. I also don't see that what she did outside the home to make money in any way violates the agreement. Most likely her daughter didn't even know what her mommy did for a living. I know that most of the dancers where I worked didn't tell their kids (not because they were ashamed, but because the kids were too young to understand). So in what way was her job interfering with her raising her kid in a Christian environment. It's not like she took the kid to work with her.

From an interview (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/silvas.cnna/index.html)

CAFFERTY (Interviewer) : You signed an agreement at the time you enrolled your daughter in the school, and ... basically, it says: "Capital Christian School shall have high spiritual and academic standards and shall include the development of the whole person spiritually, mentally, socially, physically and emotionally. Capital Christian Center, the school will be consistent with the General Council of the Assemblies of God"...

Certainly it should come as no surprise that an exotic dancer would not probably be viewed -- and this is not to pass any judgment on what you do for a living -- but probably would not be viewed in that community as an acceptable line of work for a parent enrolled in their school. I mean, surely you can't be surprised at their reaction.

SILVAS (Mom): I am not surprised, and I have always been very sensitive. I understand that that line of work is not understood by a majority of people, especially in that environment.

Doesn't seem that Mom is surprised that the school would frown on her line of work. She picked that kind of socially conservative school to put her child in.

Later the pastor says..

COLE: We ask for a partnership with the parents that they understand we are working with them. What the parent teaches in the home, we reinforce in our school, and we work together. Well, what is being said with the words and what's being modeled with the lifestyle is a very confusing message.

Not necessarily my exact preference for educating my kid...but I can't imagine that someone enrolling their kid in this school would really be that shocked that they take this attitude.

What next..."What..you mean I can't get a pork tenderloin at Hebrew School?

Monty

05-21-2002, 05:15 PM

wring: I meant that the school administration was taking "provide a Christian homelife" in a nebulous manner. I believe I've pointed out that I don't consider employment as a stripper to be unchristian or immoral, but that the school in question does.

wring

05-21-2002, 05:30 PM

Monty - beagledave just provided the data.

I understood that you were assuming that the church would believe that exotic dancing was immoral. Obviously they do (the pastor said so), what I was questioning, is 'how do we presume that this mother knew this'. and according to the link just posted, she did. Doesn't matter how (if in writing or not), but she admits that she knew they'd have a problem w/it.

No further objection from me, thanks.

Manda JO

05-21-2002, 09:35 PM

As I said in the other thread, I think one big issue here is how you view school. Some people view school as primarily a relationship between students and teachers. Others see it as the nexus of a whole cummunity of school-teacher-parent-others in community. If you take the former view, expelling the daughter because of the mother is wacked. If you take the latter view, it makes sense. They are not punnishing hte daughter for the sins of the mother: they are expelling the whole family from the community. You cannot sustain a community if you do not exclude people who do not agree with the values of the community: you just can't. The values are why the community exisits, and if they are held in a hit-or-miss fashion, the community falls apart into a number of several, seperate institutions. That may well not be a bad thing, but it isn't what these people want.

Now, had they kicked themout becuase the mother was a former stripper, that would seem very unChristian to me.

Monty

05-22-2002, 12:15 AM

That's a great explanation, Manda Jo! May I quote you on this in the near future?

Manda JO

05-22-2002, 01:18 AM

Oh, I love to be quoted.

Rilchiam

05-22-2002, 07:41 AM

Y'know, in a way, stripping is a fairly chaste endeavor. Patrons are not allowed to touch the dancers. Dancers are not allowed to have outside contact with patrons. And in California, no alcohol is served at fully-nudity clubs. So she wasn't drinking, and she wasn't commiting adultery. I suppose "being naked in public" doesn't fit the church's standards, but she's not the Whore of Babylon here.

beagledave

05-22-2002, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Rilchiam
I suppose "being naked in public" doesn't fit the church's standards, but she's not the Whore of Babylon here.

Of course it doesn't matter what you think in this particular case. I don't have a problem eating bacon (mmmm bacon!). But I can understand that other religions have a prohibition against it. If I voluntarily sent my kid to a school run by such a faith..it would seem a bit silly to say "Gee..what's the big deak in eating a few slices of bacon once in awhile?"

PunditLisa

05-22-2002, 09:01 AM

Different degrees of this debate have been played out for years. When I was a kid, if you went to a catholic high school you were expelled if you got pregnant. Some argued that it was the right thing to do since the teenager obviously had broken the rules she had agreed to live by; others argued it wasn't very christian to abandon a girl at the point in her life where she needed Christ the most.

I can see both sides. Glad I'm not an administrator.

RTFirefly

05-22-2002, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Rilchiam
Y'know, in a way, stripping is a fairly chaste endeavor. Patrons are not allowed to touch the dancers. Dancers are not allowed to have outside contact with patrons. And in California, no alcohol is served at fully-nudity clubs. So she wasn't drinking, and she wasn't commiting adultery. I suppose "being naked in public" doesn't fit the church's standards, but she's not the Whore of Babylon here. Maybe it's 'fairly chaste' by our standards.

But it's not chaste by my standards, let alone those of the Assemblies of God. Men go to strip joints to get hard-ons over the strippers, so the object of the stripper is to dance in a way that gets men aroused over her. I don't consider that a big deal, but I don't consider stripping (or watching) 'chaste', either.

And as Jesus says in Ch.5 of Matthew: 27: "You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
28: But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Seems clear enough to me.

Czarcasm

05-22-2002, 10:29 AM

I wonder if the school would kick out a student if the parent was caught cheating at taxes(stealing) or got divorced because of an affair?

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

05-22-2002, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by wring
I don't see anything specific about disallowed employment for the parents. and yet, the article goes on Give me a break. "I am shocked -- yes, SHOCKED -- that an evangelical Christian community would find stripping immoral! If only they had pointed that out specifically!"

Are you really contending that this woman was honestly surprised that the church would view her stripping as contrary to the maintenance of "a Christian learning structure that involves the entire family"?

wring

05-22-2002, 05:19 PM

Dewey -
as there are fundementalist Christians on this board who have gone on and on about how 'common perception of fundementalist beliefs aren't necessarily accurate', I wanted to be certain that we weren't all projecting.

But, since the item you quoted, some one came in and gave documentation regarding that specific point and I had posted that I withdrew that objection, what, pray tell, is your point? That I shouldn't have dared question assumptions?

Manda JO

05-22-2002, 05:27 PM

quote]I wonder if the school would kick out a student if the parent was caught cheating at taxes(stealing) or got divorced because of an affair?
[/quote]

Czarcasm, in both of those cases a person could argue that they sinned are are now repentant: Christian churches pretty much have to forgive past transgressions. The stripping was on-going, and that's different. Pregnancy falls into the same catagory: you shouldn't kick a girl out of school because she got pregnant, but I couldn't argue with a school that insisted that the girl either got married ASAP or ceased to have a sexual relationship with the father. Like I said before, if they had kicked the womqn out because she was a former stripper, I'd have been appalled.

Jackmannii

05-22-2002, 06:56 PM

Maybe I missed this in the midst of all the righteous fervor, but why exactly was Silvas featured in Internet photos? Is there a "Hot Christian Moms" website?

Surely, as in the case of the Concerned Christian Parent, there is someone amongst us who as a, um, mere point of research interest made it his business to look into the matter.

Not that I would ever view such a display of degraded offal.

But it would make a nice counterpoint to Jack Chick.

CRorex

05-23-2002, 10:06 AM

I don't give a damn one way or another on this, but I just find something ironic.

She's a stripper, yet the head of the school doesn't know about it until the incident. Yet a kindergardner was able to get pictures of it.

Now, let us reflect on this. Either she's a famous enough stripper that pictures of her are easy to find, or the child had help.

A 5 or 6 year old (or however the heck old you have to be to get into kindergarden) probably isn't web savvy enough to track down a nude photo of a local stripper.

I'm just thinking there is something far more interesting going on here, maybe a tale of love, rejection and revenge. Or some fundie with a wild hair up his/her ass that surfs for a lot of 'net porn. Ok maybe they weren't surfing for porn, but were trying to find a webpage that documents how to remove the hair from their rectum.

SuaSponte

05-23-2002, 10:37 AM

CRorex, it's a funny notion, but unfortunately I don't think it's correct. The original article in the OP merely stated that
And that became a problem this week when a parent at her daughter's kindergarten showed the school some Internet pictures of Silvas.

Nothing about a kid finding it. 'Course, it makes one wonder if that parent is providing a "a Christian learning structure that involves the entire family," by beating off in front of the computer to nekkid pictures. Wonder if his/her child is the next out the door?

Sua

beagledave

05-31-2002, 11:06 AM

Oh yeah..Mom deserves our sympathy (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/31/stripper.mom.reut/index.html) alright...

I believe posing for Playboy is the American dream for a woman."

Pastor Rick Cole told the San Francisco Chronicle on Thursday that he was disappointed Silvas again violated an agreement she had signed but said her daughter would be allowed to finish school.

"This is a big disappointment and a big setback from the path that we appeared to be on," Cole told the newspaper's afternoon edition. "She knows full well what she's doing and understands it's contrary to what we agreed to."

Apparently posing for Playboy (something she apparently knew would violate the agreement she had with the school) is a priority over having her kid at this particular school (that again she voluntarily enrolled her daughter in)

I'm guessing this aspect of the story won't get near the "outrage" of the initial actions of the school.

belladonna

05-31-2002, 11:19 AM

beagledave, just for the record I didn't start this thread to elicit sympathy for mom. It was the little girl at the center of the shit storm that concerned me--and how these decisions made by OTHER people were being used to punish her.

Learning that this woman posed for playboy does nothing to convince me that a church should turn their backs on a small innocent child because her mother may or may not be a relentless exhibitionist. See the difference?

beagledave

05-31-2002, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by belladonna
beagledave, just for the record I didn't start this thread to elicit sympathy for mom. It was the little girl at the center of the shit storm that concerned me--and how these decisions made by OTHER people were being used to punish her.

Learning that this woman posed for playboy does nothing to convince me that a church should turn their backs on a small innocent child because her mother may or may not be a relentless exhibitionist. See the difference?

You say decisions made by other people..yet I don't recall anything in the OP that suggested that the mother had done anything wrong...it appeas that you laid all of the blame at the feet of the church.

The mother has made choices to the detriment of her daughter being in a socially conservative Christian school.

Again..there were more than a few people criticizing the actions of the church for potentially disrupting this girl's life...I didn't see nearly as many criticisms of the actions of the mother ..who admitted that she knew the church would have a problem with her actions..and went ahead and did them anyway.

Does the mother get any blame in all of this..or just the big bad church?

belladonna

05-31-2002, 12:12 PM

I have no plans to nominate this woman for mother of the year, if that's what you're asking. And, from the OP
Will someone please explain to me what part of shunning a little girl because of her mother’s choices even remotely resembles “god’s will”?
so, yes--I actually did acknowledge her role in this.

You are correct, however, that my main irritation was with this church and it's policies. Let's review...

*Mother enrolls child in a school she feels will provide maximum educational opportunites.
*Mother signs vague agreement to provide a "christian learning structure" and attend church regularly.
*Child is (assuming here) a good student who shows up, does her work, and makes friends with her classmates.
*Local busybody alerts church of Mom's employment, but faces zero consequences personally for viewing such materials.
*With no warning, said child is expelled because of some scandal with her mother that she may or may not even understand.
*Mother balks, but eventually quits so that her child can return to school.
*Child returns to school where her mother has now been singled out as "unchristian" or dirty.

So we have a mother who wants a good education for her daughter, works as a stripper to make that happen, and quits in order to keep it happening.
We have a child who attends school and fufills her role as a student to the best of her abilities.
And we have a church who, when displeased with a member of their congregation, chooses to punish her five-year-old daughter by pulling her away from her friends, teacher, and classroom instead of dealing directly with the mother--you know, the one they had the problem with in the first place.

Which party do you think behaved most appropriately?

davidw

05-31-2002, 01:35 PM

Which party do you think behaved most appropriately?

The church.

The church had the mother sign an agreement stating what type of moral behavior they expect from parents (and according to the interview quoted earlier in this thread, she knew that her job wouldn't be approved of). When they found out she was a stripper, they told her that she has to quit if she wants to keep her daughter in the school. They offer financial assistance, and help in finding a job. She refuses to quit, so they expel the girl.

They work out a deal, and the girl is allowed back into the school. The mother is now working at a radio station, and has numerous other job offers. Now she decides to pose in Playboy, even though she has to know by this point that it won't be approved of. Essentially, she's willing to sacrifice her daughter's education so that she can live out "the American dream for women."

The church has been patient and reasonable, and the mother has taken advantage of it.

beagledave

05-31-2002, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by belladonna
I have no plans to nominate this woman for mother of the year, if that's what you're asking. And, from the OP

so, yes--I actually did acknowledge her role in this.

Please. You said that the mother chose to be a stripper. You said nothing about assigning blame or responsibility to the mother at all. Indeed, other posters indicated that the mother did nothing wrong (and I didn't see you trying to correct them)

You are correct, however, that my main irritation was with this church and it's policies. Let's review...

*Mother enrolls child in a school she feels will provide maximum educational opportunites.

Don't know why she enrolled her kid there..do you? Maybe she enrolled her kid there because of the same reason that kids go to Bob Jones University..to be surrounded by socially conservative christians.

*Mother signs vague agreement to provide a "christian learning structure" and attend church regularly.

Mom admits in an interview that she knew that the church community would have a problem with her employment (you saw my linked CNN interview..right?)

*Child is (assuming here) a good student who shows up, does her work, and makes friends with her classmates.

Have no idea about the accuracy of this notion..but sure, why not.

*Local busybody alerts church of Mom's employment, but faces zero consequences personally for viewing such materials.

Don't know the details of how this happened...was it an anonymous note to the pastor..or are you assuming facts not in evidence? Maybe the parent was tipped off by someone else..said parent checked it out( before falsely accusing mom)..then wrote the pastor?

*With no warning, said child is expelled because of some scandal with her mother that she may or may not even understand.

Unfortunate..but yes..her mom did something that she knew would violate the agreement she had with the church..a socially conservative church, that she voluntarily sent her child to.

*Mother balks, but eventually quits so that her child can return to school.
*Child returns to school where her mother has now been singled out as "unchristian" or dirty.

Her moms' behavior is certainly identified as "wrong" by that socially conservative community that she voluntarily associated with. (and supported by the scriptural passage referred to by RTFirefly)...haven't seen them attach a scarlet "S" to her clothing yet though...so perhaps the "dirty" label is an exercise in hyperbole? But the mom KNEW that the church community would have a problem with her job (call it dirty..unchristian..whatever)..and still went ahead with her planned occupation.

So we have a mother who wants a good education for her daughter, works as a stripper to make that happen, and quits in order to keep it happening.
We have a child who attends school and fufills her role as a student to the best of her abilities.
And we have a church who, when displeased with a member of their congregation, chooses to punish her five-year-old daughter by pulling her away from her friends, teacher, and classroom instead of dealing directly with the mother--you know, the one they had the problem with in the first place.

Which party do you think behaved most appropriately?

Hmmm still no statement that the mom did anything wrong.

FTR, I wouldn't send my kid to a socially conservative school like that.
FTR, I think that the school could have handled the situation better..at the very least from a PR point of view.
FTR, I do realize that the real "loser in this story is the little girl.

That being said...I saw no blame assigned to the mom. You refer to a "vague" agreement..as if the poor little stripper mom had no idea at all that the church community would have a problem with her occupation (when of course she admits that she knew they would).

If you had said..here is a situation where the actions of several adults, including a mother and a church pastor, have created a tough situation for an innocent little girl...I would have agreed with you.

Monty

05-31-2002, 02:14 PM

Although I disagree with the particular church in question regarding modesty and morality, I do find that they are, at least, being consistent in their approach. The child's mother certainly isn't.

I wonder if the Catholic Church (and other outfits which require a child's sponsor to agree to a certain standard) will suddenly decide that the mafioso really can't sponsor even their own children at a baptism?

Abe Babe

05-31-2002, 02:18 PM

originally by belladonna
*Mother enrolls child in a school she feels will provide maximum educational opportunites.
*Mother signs vague agreement to provide a "christian learning structure" and attend church regularly.
*Child is (assuming here) a good student who shows up, does her work, and makes friends with her classmates.
*Local busybody alerts church of Mom's employment, but faces zero consequences personally for viewing such materials.
*With no warning, said child is expelled because of some scandal with her mother that she may or may not even understand.
*Mother balks, but eventually quits so that her child can return to school.
*Child returns to school where her mother has now been singled out as "unchristian" or dirty.

I think this can be summed up more easily as:

*Mother enrolls child in a private school.
*Mother signs contract agreeing to abide by certain conditions in order to have her child attend that school.
*Mother engages in conduct that clearly violates her portion of the contract.
*School offers mother a chance to bring herself back into compliance with the contract. Mother refuses.
*School exercises its right to negate the contract.

How would this be any different that if the Mother had the money, but refused to pay the tuition at the school? The child would still be the loser for her mother's refusal to abide by the terms of the contract she willingly signed.

belladonna

05-31-2002, 03:34 PM

Sheesh—the board just ate a whole long response. ::beating breast::

Anyway, trying again.

Abe—you make a good point with the tuition example, and I’m going to have to think about that for a while… But as to whether she “clearly violated” anything there’s been a lot of debate on that already.
IMHO there’s a bit of a difference between refusing to reimburse someone for a provided service and refusing to quit a job that pays your bills because some people decide that it’s immoral and violates a vague contract, if you read it with your eyes crossed.

beagledave—yes I read your link and yes I heard her say she knew the church would not approve of her job. However, I don’t read that as meaning that she necessarily realized that that disapproval would translate itself into the expulsion of her child. I know I wouldn’t have--especially not based on the wording in that contract--but maybe I’m just not anal enough for these conservative types :). And as to what she did wrong—well, what did she do other than working in a strip club? She wasn’t sneaking around or trying to be lowkey (another fact in favor of her not realizing kiddo would be expelled), she worked in the same town as the church IIRC and had pics online for god’s sake. And when it became clear that she wasn’t going to change anyone’s minds, she quit the job so that her kid could return. Forgive me for not crucifying her for that.

As to how the school learned of it—yes, it was some parent (busybody) who alerted the school after finding the pics online. The article said the parent “showed the school some pictures” so I read that to mean they went there waving them around in holy outrage. I may have been reading into it a little too much so—you’re right—it may have been an anonymous tip or letter.

Now, I think this woman is a bit of a twit and she is certainly enjoying the limelight that this whole situation has put her in so I’m not going to pretend she’s a victim in any way. My original beef with the church was for punishing the child for the mother’s actions/choices/mistakes. They are letting her return now despite mom’s playboy poses, so apparently they’ve changed their position on the matter and you won’t hear me criticize them for that.

Outside of the ever-evolving details of this particular situation, I stand by my original position that punishing a CHILD for an adult’s lifestyle choices is wrong.

beagledave

05-31-2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by belladonna

Outside of the ever-evolving details of this particular situation, I stand by my original position that punishing a CHILD for an adult’s lifestyle choices is wrong.

Is "punishing" a child for an adult's failure to pay tution right? If a school did drop a kid for failure to pay tuition..would you also refer to that action as punishing the child? (And so..would "punishing the child" then be "Ok" in certain circumstances?)

You seem to phrase the church's actions as specifically and intentionally aimed at "punishing" or "bringing harm" to the little girl.

IMHO there’s a bit of a difference between refusing to reimburse someone for a provided service and refusing to quit a job that pays your bills because some people decide that it’s immoral and violates a vague contract, if you read it with your eyes crossed.

Those "some people" are the folks that she voluntarily chose to align with..who have a scriptural interpretation (see RTFs post) of the bible that does consider that immoral. It may not be my cuppa tea...but are you really trying to suggest that this woman did not know that stripping was a problem activity for her church community? Maybe she didn't think her way through all of the consequences of her activites, but when I see the church allow her daughter back in to finish up the year..and then the mom poses for Playboy a few weeks later..it seems like she is spitting in the face of the community that she originally voluntarily joined.

beagledave

05-31-2002, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by belladonna
She wasn’t sneaking around or trying to be lowkey (another fact in favor of her not realizing kiddo would be expelled), she worked in the same town as the church IIRC and had pics online for god’s sake. And when it became clear that she wasn’t going to change anyone’s minds, she quit the job so that her kid could return. Forgive me for not crucifying her for that.

Heh. Well how do you defend her Playboy posing then?

You'll admit that there is no way in hell that she doesn't NOW know that stripping/posing can be grounds for student dismissal, right?

And yet..she still does it?

So your argument falls flat. Knowledge of the church's position does NOT prevent her from doing actions that run contrary to their position.

rjung

05-31-2002, 04:26 PM

I suspect the Mom merely posed in PlayBoy just to hork off the school administrators. :D

While I don't agree with her violating the principles behind her parental agreement, I'm also annoyed at the school peddling a parental code of conduct to begin with(*), so I gotta give her a little cheer for her chutzpah. :D

(* = But they had a right to do so, I agree.)

doreen

05-31-2002, 05:19 PM

yes I read your link and yes I heard her say she knew the church would not approve of her job. However, I don’t read that as meaning that she necessarily realized that that disapproval would translate itself into the expulsion of her child. I know I wouldn’t have--especially not based on the wording in that contract--but maybe I’m just not anal enough for these conservative types . And as to what she did wrong—well, what did she do other than working in a strip club? She wasn’t sneaking around or trying to be lowkey (another fact in favor of her not realizing kiddo would be expelled), she worked in the same town as the church IIRC and had pics online for god’s sake. And when it became clear that she wasn’t going to change anyone’s minds, she quit the job so that her kid could return. Forgive me for not crucifying her for that.
.

She may not have realized the kid would be expelled, but even the mother admits that she wasn't surprised at the reaction the school had to her job. I wouldn't crucify her for her job. I would however, say that she didn't exhibit much concern for her daughter by enrolling her child in a school populated by children whose parents at best would disapprove of her job and at worst would not allow their kids to associate with her daughter, a school where her daughter will be taught the church's values, and will eventually come to the conclusion that the church believes her mother's job is sinful. And I'm not really sure why you think it matters if she thought her daughter would be expelled.You or I might not have believed the job was a problem based on the contract, but neither of us is a member of and a former Sunday school teacher in that church, as she was. She certainly knew , just as any Catholic who, when enrolling a child in a Catholic school, agrees to provide a good Catholic home enviornment knows that that includes attending Mass on Sunday. And if she didn't abide by what she knew to be their interpretation of "christian enviornment", even after the pastor spoke to her, what, exactly, could she have thought would happen other than expulsion? They would just forget about it? Take some lesser action? I can't see any lesser action they could take.

doreen

05-31-2002, 05:30 PM

I wonder if the Catholic Church (and other outfits which require a child's sponsor to agree to a certain standard) will suddenly decide that the mafioso really can't sponsor even their own children at a baptism?

I just have to correct this. First of all, a person cannot be either the godparent or the sponsor for their own child. Secondly, baptism and sponsorship aren't nearly the same as enrolling a child in a school. Once your a sponsor or a godparent, that's it . There's no way to strip it from you because you didn't abide by the standard.

doreen

doreen

05-31-2002, 05:52 PM

oops

Take out " I just have to correct this" from the above post.

belladonna

05-31-2002, 05:58 PM

beagledave--I said punishing a child for a parent's lifestyle is wrong, and last I checked falling on hard times is not a lifestyle choice.

You seem to phrase the church's actions as specifically and intentionally aimed at "punishing" or "bringing harm" to the little girl.

I don't believe that was their intention, no. I believe it was to punish the mother, in which case it's especially fucked up that this little girl felt the brunt of the decision.

Those "some people" are the folks that she voluntarily chose to align with..who have a scriptural interpretation (see RTFs post) of the bible that does consider that immoral.

There's biblical passages about beating your wife and sacrificing children too. And that pesky one people seem to think addresses homosexuals. Would we be berating a lesbian who refused to dump her lover and run out to join a hetero-indoctrination camp?

It may not be my cuppa tea...but are you really trying to suggest that this woman did not know that stripping was a problem activity for her church community?

No, and no matter how many times you read my last couple posts you won't see me make such a claim. I said that her knowing it was a problem does not mean she realized it would result in the expulsion of her daughter.

Heh. Well how do you defend her Playboy posing then?

Heh. I didn't, and I don't,.

You'll admit that there is no way in hell that she doesn't NOW know that stripping/posing can be grounds for student dismissal, right?
And yet..she still does it?

Maybe she's decided that with all the money this incident is raking in she'll be able to send her daughter to a better school? Or maybe that the "Christian environment" she was seeking for her daughter would be more likely found elsewhere? Or maybe that she no longer really cares what the people who did this think?

So your argument falls flat. Knowledge of the church's position does NOT prevent her from doing actions that run contrary to their position.

Well, if that had been my argument, you'd have a point. Unfortunately for you, my point was that knowledge that it was a problem did not necessarily lead to the realization that her daughter would be expelled for it. Just because she knows now, doesn't mean she knew then.
The fact that she's made this choice says a lot about her true motives for raising the ruckus in the first place, if you ask me, but I don't believe that she originally planned it. I think she was honestly surprised that her daughter was expelled, but decided to take lemons and make lemonade, as it were.

Regardless--I'll call uncle here. I'm not a debater, and I've been muddling through this all day trying to make my point--which is hard enough without you putting words in my mouth.
So I'm going to just agree to disagree and walk away. It's Friday, the weather's beautiful, and my son wants to play on the swings.... :)

bella

Monty

05-31-2002, 07:24 PM

doreen: Please explain to me how the numerous Roman Catholic and Episcopal Church baptisms I've seen happened with the parents sponsoring their children if one can't sponsor one's child. Thanks.

Manda JO

05-31-2002, 09:27 PM

belladonna: when you are building a community of like-minded people (of which the school is only one aspect), the only tool you have to control the shape that community takes is expulsion. It is not about punnishment: you can't punish someone in a voluntary association. It's about the survival of the community. As I said before, if you want to create a community based on shared values, you cannot let anyone remain in the community who does not share those values. Otherwise, the community is diluted and dies, and what you are left with (in this case) is a commercial business selling education. There isn't anything wrong with a commercial business selling education, and in fact, that is the sort of school I'd chose for my (hypothetical) children, but that isn't what these people want.

An analogy: if you are starting a hippie commune, and a couple show up and want to join, only they are going to keep their SUVs, and their enourmous wardrobes, and they have hired a couple of migrant workers to do their portion of the field work, the commune would have to kick them out: if they didn't, in fifty years half the people there would be SUV-driving, migrant worker hiring, Gap-clothing wearing yuppies, and the structure of the commune would now just functoin as a ceighborhood association and social club. And the whole point of going off and seperating from society would have been obliterated.

The church in this case is trying to create a voluntary community to live in that abides by a certain set of values. If a member dosen't share those values, they have no place in the community. From this point of view, they aren't "punnishing" anyone: they are just trying to preserve their community. Furthermore, the only way to "punish" the mother and not the daughter would be to try and get the daughter to stay in the community but kick out the mother. They have no legal right to do this, and I think that there would have been a much greater shitstorm if the headlines had read "Church trys to have daughter taken away from stripper mom!"

Monty

05-31-2002, 10:27 PM

doreen:

Here's the information regarding sponsors from the Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America:

Each candidate for Holy Baptism is to be sponsored by one or more baptized persons.

Sponsors of adults and older children present their candidates and thereby signify their endorsement of the candidates and their intention to support them by prayer and example in their Christian life. Sponsors of infants, commonly called godparents, present their candidates, make promises in their own names, and also take vows on behalf of their candidates.

It is fitting that parents be included among the godparents of their own children. Parents and godparents are to be instructed in the meaning of Baptism, in their duties to help the new Christians grow in the knowledge and love of God, and in their responsibilities as members of his Church.

The bolding above is mine. The quote is taken from http://www.dandello.net/bocp/bocp3.htm

Hope this enlightens us all.

doreen

06-01-2002, 08:02 AM

Monty

Should have specified that I was speaking about the Catholic Church, not the Episcopalians or any other Church.

Ragarding Baptism :

Can. 874 §1 To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must:

1° be appointed by the candidate for baptism, or by the parents or whoever stands in their place, or failing these, by the parish priest or the minister; to be appointed the person must be suitable for this role and have the intention of fulfilling it;
2° be not less than sixteen years of age, unless a different age has been stipulated by the diocesan Bishop, or unless the parish priest or the minister considers that there is a just reason for an exception to be made;
3° be a catholic who has been confirmed and has received the blessed Eucharist, and who lives a life of faith which befits the role to be undertaken;
4° not labor under a canonical penalty, whether imposed or declared;
5° not be either the father or the mother of the person to be baptized

Regarding Confirmation

Can. 893 §1 A person who would undertake the office of sponsor must fulfill the conditions mentioned in can. 874.

I can only assume that when you've seen Catholic (infant)Baptisms, you have been mistaking the "parent" part of the ritual for a "sponsor" part.

Doreen