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?
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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?)
Have no idea about the accuracy of this notion…but sure, why not.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect the Mom merely posed in PlayBoy just to hork off the school administrators. 
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.
(* = But they had a right to do so, I agree.)
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.
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
oops
Take out " I just have to correct this" from the above post.
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.
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.
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?
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. I didn’t, and I don’t,.
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?
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
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.
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!”
doreen:
Here’s the information regarding sponsors from the Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America:
The bolding above is mine. The quote is taken from http://www.dandello.net/bocp/bocp3.htm
Hope this enlightens us all.
Monty
Should have specified that I was speaking about the Catholic Church, not the Episcopalians or any other Church.
Ragarding Baptism :
Regarding Confirmation
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
Looks to me like the adult candidate can, indeed, nominate his parents for the office of sponsor, doreen.
You’ll notice that in my earlier post, I did, indeed, include the Episcopal Church in my description.
Now if you can dig up canon law that specifically says “the parent can’t sponsor the child,” more power to you.