If you think that your post was a “light hearted jab” about the issue then you need to rewrite your position. You made a statement that basically said that the “teacher or administrators” were going to strip clubs.
That is obviously not true. And to quote “My comment regarding how they found out was based on the “rumor” that was mentioned in the article.” Nope, reread what you wrote. I told you about that quote.
It is pretty obvious that you are trying to cover your tracks because you want to cover your position. If you meant your post as a joke then you need to make sure you do not look like a fool. You claim cites that are not in your posts.
I dont want to fight about this but it is clear that you are trying to cover your ass. And so, I give you a big old fuck off.
This is going to rate as one of the all time stupidist questions I’ve ever asked here, but does the same US Consitution which doesn’t allow prayer in schools actually allow schools to kick kids out because they disapprove of the morality of the parents? I’m really not trying to be obtuse or difficult here, I simply don’t get how the school concerned can even MAKE that kind of a rule legally.
Okay, admittedly I have not read all the responses here so I will give my opinion on this having not read them.
The woman signed a contract with the school, a Christian school. Whether or not she really read the fine print or if there was any fine print, anyone in their correct mind knows that a Christian school will not approve of such an occupation. She violated that contract.
Right or wrong in anyone’s eyes, it is completely up to the school administrators to say whether or not they agree with the mother’s occupation. It is their school, not her daughters. They have a moral code that they have every right to uphold under their private school.
Had this been a public school, then we’re talking lawsuit material but a private institution has and should have every right to work within the confines of what they believe to be right and wrong. To erode those rights goes against everything I believe in even if I disagree with the school’s decision. That’s the beauty of it all really, I may think it’s okay for a woman to be a stripper (and I do) but I also believe whole-heartedly in a private school to deny access if the person or persons don’t represent the values, morals or ethics that the school is about.
It’s that simple. If you want to have private school for your child, choose a place that will accept your occupation. Don’t cry “my rights are being violated” and don’t sue. If she is that strong about putting her child through a religious schooling she has these choices:
Find a school that will accept her daughter and not be concerned about her occupation.
Find a non-religious school that can give her a sound education that has no such restrictions.
Get a job that can support you and your daughter while she’s going through a Christian school and doen’t violate the school’s moral code.
Stick with public schools, just move to a nicer area where the schools are better, I would think that the tutition would afford a better location in a better school district.
We all make choices in life. Being a stripper is her choice, it is not the choice of the private school to accept a child’s mother that is a stripper. Hey, I didn’t write the rules, the school did and they have every right as a private institution to do so.
BTW, there is still an all men’s club here in C Springs, no women are allowed to join the private club and honestly, I don’t care. They do as they please, doesn’t harm me at all.
As a former Sacramentan, I have to point out that this did happen in Sacramento, specifically Rancho Cordova, which is where I grew up. It’s great that Rancho can now be known for it’s strippers as well as it’s Ukrainian serial killers.
The school in question is the Capital Christian Center. I know kids that went to school there. The place is full of freaks. The kid is better off far far away from there. The church that it is associated with is the great force of the religious right in Sacramento (which is a town with an absurd amount of political diversity),
There really arn’t that many private schools in the area, and the public schools are pretty bad, but have some very dedicated teachers and a lot of really refreshing diversity. Moving out of Rancho Cordova can be pretty hard. It’s a poor area and people who live there usually don’t have the kind of cash to run out to better school districts. If she is living in substidized housing (a pretty likely assumption in Rancho Cordova), she is probably stuck in Rancho because that is where the majority of Sacramento’s public houseing is, and waiting lists anywhere else can be years long. The extra four hundred dollars a month you’d get from not paying private school tuition isn’t really enough to get you both out of substidized houseing and into a decent area.
I just have to wonder, if the church is so into converting people and spreading the word, why are they pushing this little kid away? I certainly don’t think the Capitol Christian Center really needs more supporters, but it still seems pretty hypocritical.
The US Constitution protects individuals from the government. Prayer is allowed in schools, just not organized, planned, or otherwise stamped-with-approval prayer. Anywhere there’s a math test, there is a prayer being said.
The US Constitution does not protect individuals from other individuals, or in this case, private schools. A private school can do anything they damn well want.
But not the school. (although, if she can find a VALID loophole, she should sue them, too)
She should sue the person who downloaded pictures from the strip club’s web site, printed them, and took them to the school’s administrators. THAT’S the part about this that bothers me. Wouldn 't the act of going to the website itself constitute a violation of the school’s ‘Christian Values’? Or how about violating the Christian Concept of ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’?
(I picture the Simpson’s episode where Milhouse rats out Bart to Rev Lovejoy, and the Rev punishes Bart, and Milhouse also [“You too, Snitchy”].)
Amendment I says we can have “no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
For better or worse, the current interpretation ofthat passage regarding your question is:
“No establishment” --> no organized devotions or doctrine classes in the government’s public, tax-financed, civil-employee-staffed, must-accept-anyone-who-applies, tuition-free schools
“Free exercise” --> A * Church’s own*, privately owned-operated-and-funded, selective-admission, tuition-charging school can have all the prayer it wants, teach a specific doctrine, have doctrinally-based morals clauses in the enrollment and employment contracts.
This school from what I can read seems to have acted contrary to the spirit of Christian Charity. The reports creates in many of us the suspicion that other parents got their shorts in a twist about their kids associating with someone they saw as an undesirable.
If their position is so steadfast, they could have just called the mother in privately, and advised her that she should look for a different school next year (letting the girl finish off this schoolyear) . I don’t know from the press reports if this was attempted, or if any other method to minimize scandal was tried. (OTOH, if they tried to work something out and and Mama took the unrepentant position that this is what I do and I don’t intend to change it, well…)
It is very unfair to the child involved. After all, could be argued Mother WAS trying to give her the sort of education that would prevent the kid from following in her footsteps. And Jesus did say it was the sinners who needed him. But strictly legally, the case would be weak.
I believe it’s probably best the girl has been expelled. Can you imagine the other kids teasing her? “My mommy says your mommy dances naked in front of men…no, you can’t play with us.” She would have been shunned by the other students…kids can be very cruel, and you don’t forget that pain.
reprise, the separation of church and state does not come into play here because the school is not goverment funded. A privately owned school can have prayer, ritual, etv, because they are just that, private. The private school I went to 7th-8th, actually had a seperate ‘building’ where the state paid for school councillor did her job because of these limits. It is a question of private vs public in the end. And even though it does in many ways suck, the school in question has the rights to do what it did.
