# Little Girl Shunned in the Name of God **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 21, 2002, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091 "2002-05-21T13:52:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/1 "2002-05-21T13:52:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorgon\_Heap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f475e1/32.png) [@Gorgon\_Heap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorgon_Heap)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/2 "2002-05-21T14:19:23Z")
They let her back. It was on the news this morning. ---
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/3 "2002-05-21T14:28:57Z")
Really? How was it resolved? Did mom quit or what? ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/4 "2002-05-21T14:50:24Z")
[http://www.sltrib.com/05212002/nation\_w/738726.htm](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. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/5 "2002-05-21T14:52:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/6 "2002-05-21T15:18:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/7 "2002-05-21T15:34:40Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/8 "2002-05-21T16:02:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/9 "2002-05-21T16:07:23Z")
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. \ ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/10 "2002-05-21T16:08:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/11 "2002-05-21T16:09:21Z")
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…? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/12 "2002-05-21T16:16:50Z")
Dang, grien, you forgot to call “lucre” “filty lucre.” 😁 ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/13 "2002-05-21T17:32:17Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![cleosia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9dc877/32.png) [@cleosia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cleosia)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/14 "2002-05-21T17:47:55Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/15 "2002-05-21T18:10:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/16 "2002-05-21T18:34:25Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/17 "2002-05-21T18:46:20Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![belladonna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9fc29f/32.png) [@belladonna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/belladonna)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/18 "2002-05-21T19:39:54Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/19 "2002-05-21T19:45:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/20 "2002-05-21T19:58:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091.md?page=2)