# 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:** 2
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/21 "2002-05-21T21:50:45Z")
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. ---
**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, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/22 "2002-05-21T22:02:48Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2002, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/23 "2002-05-21T22:06:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**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, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/24 "2002-05-21T22:15:53Z")
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. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/25 "2002-05-21T22:30:15Z")
**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. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/26 "2002-05-22T02:35:55Z")
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. ---
**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 22, 2002, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/27 "2002-05-22T05:15:53Z")
That’s a great explanation, Manda Jo! May I quote you on this in the near future? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/28 "2002-05-22T06:18:31Z")
Oh, I love to be quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Rilchiam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rilchiam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rilchiam)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/29 "2002-05-22T12:41:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/30 "2002-05-22T13:33:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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?” ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/31 "2002-05-22T14:01:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/32 "2002-05-22T15:11:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/33 "2002-05-22T15:29:24Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/34 "2002-05-22T22:13:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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”? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/35 "2002-05-22T22:19:40Z")
**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? ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/36 "2002-05-22T22:27:43Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2002, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/37 "2002-05-22T23:56:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![CRorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CRorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CRorex)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/38 "2002-05-23T15:06:56Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/39 "2002-05-23T15:37:47Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2002, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091/40 "2002-05-31T16:06:14Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/little-girl-shunned-in-the-name-of-god/110091.md?page=3)