I doubt that her employment record shows any black mark. She didn’t do anything wrong. The school probably agreed to give her a letter of positive recommendation. Her services just weren’t needed.
She of course has released this on the Internet. So now the story will follow her anywhere she goes.
The stalker/spouse horror stories would be enough to make me move. Get as far away as possible while they got that guy locked up.
I think that’s a very facile analysis.
Presumably the Christian believe that the Bible as a whole is divinely inspired, and thus other books must be read in at least some harmony with Jesus’ words. Paul’s teachings certainly take a stronger position on certain aspects of sexual immorality, and the Christian, by virtue of his belief in the divine imprimatur, can certainly give those words weight.
No.
The school system was ensuring, as best they could, that children were not killed; I have no idea what relevance you believe the passage has to this situation.
Nor, frankly, do I believe that Jesus’ teachings have much in the way of direct guidance here.
I can tell you what I think Jesus would have wanted, but I don’t pretend that my opinion is the only reasonable one. Jesus would have urged that the woman be helped, but not by continuing to employ her. I think the Christlike thing to do would be for everyone at the school to give, and the school itself kick in, enough money for her to relocate out of state – perhaps even to change her name. I suppose it’s possible she could still be tracked down, but now it’s a matter of some great effort, perhaps greater than a nutso stalker can expend.
And that destination should be selected on the basis of having a non-teaching diocesan job available for her when she arrives.
That’s what I’d urge. But I don’t regard it as unambiguously mandated by what we know of Jesus’ teachings.
Doesn’t this story just highlight why you don’t negotiate with, or cave in to the demands of terrorists and crazy people? What if some guy calls the school threatening to plant a bomb there unless the principal is fired? What if the husband in this case says he’s gonna shoot up the school unless they rehire his wife? At a certain point, you can’t allow your decisions to be dictated be unstable bullies.
Not much – at least not your average parochial school. My school certainly never did. Tuition’s expensive, but so was running the school itself. When I went to high school, I was amazed at how much more they were able to afford there.
Of course, that was twentysome years ago. But I doubt it’s changed all that much.
Paul, however, did, and your denial, whilst technically accurate, is both unhelpful and misleading - especially as Paul claimed to have the very religious insight and vision you claim earlier in the thread, so his teaching came directly from Jesus.
There’s no shortage of atheists (and apostates) here who know the bible and the teachings of the various churches extremely well, so obfuscation isn’t going to help you.
It’s not my responsibility to make my opponent’s arguments for them, especially when – as in this case – my opponent asserts his own solid knowledge and then highlights it with a factually inaccurate statement.
That’s where I was coming from.
It’s not unusual for women like this to bail him out of jail, call him up and tell him where she is even though she’s been warned repeatedly not to do so, etc.
I guess the diocese could find the woman a similar position in a different diocese in a different state if they wanted to.
That flawed logic could be used to fire every almost victim of domestic violence. This guy is in jail at the moment, and apparently he’s going to be there for another couple of months. With a sentence like that, odds are he’s going to be under a restraining order when he gets out, and if he violates the order, he’s likely looking at even more time. With a conviction for domestic violence, I believe he’ll be unable to lawfully own a gun. The odds of him going after her at work again seem rather low.
I’d like to note that “locking down the school” isn’t that big of a deal. It’s pretty standard whenever someone unknown is on campus. My school would get locked down several times a year.
This is what always pisses me off about you.
Since when is the dope (or indeed, life itself) about “winning an argument”?
Isn’t it about understanding each other better, learning, having better knowledge? Why do you want to obfuscate and “win” when you have the opportunity to educate and improve understanding?
To me, this says more about you (and actually about the worst traits of Christians in general) than anything else.
Flawed logic indeed.
If that’s indeed what she’s doing then naturally fire her arse.
And count me in that the school is over-reacting.
Has this guy made any moves towards the students? Or does he even own a gun? And is locking down the school really that big of a deal? And does the school have a security guard
Exactly. There is barely any reason to think there’s an increased risk to any students. If there’s some increased risk, it seems like a very small risk. May as well forbid the students from going outside, since cars sometimes fail to stay off the sidewalk.
The point about money turns on the fact that the school receives income from the students.
I agree with you about the vicious nature of the personality trait you’re describing.
But I think it’s really wrong to attribute this to his religion. This is a trait had by people of all religious stripes.
As you later suggest, the diocese may not be able to employ her, but they ought to pay her.Their ethical obligation is not only to her and the children but also to the larger community, and that’s a community in which abused women have a very hard time.
I certainly sympathize with parents being terrified for their kids. If I thought my daughters were at significant risk of being victims of a school shooting, you bet your ass I’d do whatever I could to protect them, including removing them from that classroom. But if my actions to protect my kids harmed someone else (say, by costing her her livelihood), I’d also step up with my responsibilities toward that person I’d harmed.
That’s not just the Christian thing to do, that’s the moral thing to do.
I wouldn’t attribute it to his religion. What I would say is that, in my experience, religious folks in general tend to “holier than thou” and are more about showing how “religious” and “correct” they are than in accepting that others are different, don’t share their ideas and don’t need them.
Christians in particular (again in my experience) seem to be more exclusionary than inclusionary.