Married Teacher Fired Over Premarital Sex

[lawtonfogle]

Rich people exchanged money. Poor people didn't. And there have always been far more poor people than rich ones.

Yeah, it is a bit hard to tell what poor people did, the rules weren't very clear, and from an archeological point of view, what they did was a lot less likely to have been recorded in some view point for us to be aware of it today.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The weddings back then could last a week at a time from what I've heard. A pastor at a methodist church was telling us about how bigger and more detailed the wedding parties were when Jesus did the miracle with the wine. I found it interesting and meant to look more into it. Cool to find different customs and such.

As pointed out, it was still expensive back then. I'm pretty sure the wedding Jesus did wine at was a couple standard deviations more extravagant than the norm.

What I find interesting is how in many cases, the husband and wife to be would live together for some time without sex while they were engaged. It was like a test of some sort.

Also, if anyone here has watched 'The Wild Girl' on the Hallmark channel, can they confirm if the wedding was an accurate portrayal of that tribes wedding customs? I tried looking it up and couldn't find it.

 

[HasturX]

Another threat of divine vengeance.

What is that all about?

It's used when someone has no argument in return. These people really don't understand that invoking boogie man threats to a non-christians is ineffective.

 

[HasturX]

Step away from the condemnation, people!

If we don't condemn people how ever are we supposed to let other people know how holy we are!

 

[katautumn]

I would like to point out a legal aspect in all of this. A contract is only as legally binding as the contents therein. Make sense? Probably not. I'll give a more long-winded answer here. If I go to work for a business and they make me sign an employment contract that binds me to things beyond the scope of legality or infringes upon my civil rights, that contract would be considered null and void if I were to challenge it in a court of law.

For example, let's say I desperately needed a job and the only place that would hire me made me sign a contract saying that I would have to discriminate against people based on their race. Let's say my job is to interview prospective new employees and a black woman applied for the job and I didn't turn her away and I'm fired for it on the grounds that I violated my employment contract. Technically I violated my contract, but because the contract violates basic civil rights, I could file a lawsuit against my former employer.

The biggest issue in this case was how the administration divulged personal information about the woman that should have been kept confidential. That is largely why this woman has enormous legal recourse to file a lawsuit against the school. Confidentiality was breached in this situation.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

ALWAYS?

I think you are forgetting someone. Comments made about those conceived out of wedlock including the word always, necessarily condemn Christ himself, as well as his virgin mother.

Oh please, the idea that you would actually bring Jesus' conception into this is wild, considering he was conceived by the HOLY GHOST. You know full well what we're talking about here.

Not a safe area to venture into, I would say.

Perfectly safe, as long as you remember we're not talking about Jesus' conception.

Step away from the condemnation, people!

Aww...that's nice. But no one has condemned anyone. The teacher lost her job. Doesn't mean she's going to hell. Sheesh.

 

[Chajara]

It it just me, or does that attitude seem to increase the risk someone will just hide it by getting an abortion?

Think of a baby shower as a congratulations for not deciding to cover it up, for accepting the mistake and not having an abortion.

And always remember, not every woman who has a child outside of wedlock had a choice in the matter.

Yeah seriously if my church took this stance I'd throw a shower myself and if people from church wanted to come they could come and if they shunned me for it, oh well. Time to find a new church. That just seems so cold-hearted and unnecessary to me.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

"Churches" don't generally throw showers for people.

A church could decide to not make their facility available for such an event, though.

 

[lawtonfogle]

"Churches" don't generally throw showers for people.

A church could decide to not make their facility available for such an event, though.

Well, when I hear of a 'church throwing a shower', I think of the community of members, not of the church itself. Perhaps my church is just a bit more close knit that many, but if one were to throw a baby shower, you would get family, friends, and an entire raid of church members, but if the church members choose not to show, there goes at least half your family and half your friends not showing (now one could argue if you should call them friends, but that is besides the point).

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, when I hear of a 'church throwing a shower', I think of the community of members, not of the church itself. Perhaps my church is just a bit more close knit that many, but if one were to throw a baby shower, you would get family, friends, and an entire raid of church members, but if the church members choose not to show, there goes at least half your family and half your friends not showing (now one could argue if you should call them friends, but that is besides the point).

At my home church we've held some controversial showers. My best friend's mom threw her a shower at the church for her wedding while she was still living with her boyfriend. The pastors weren't thrilled about it, but it wasn't the church putting it on. A good number of church members showed up, including me, but it wasn't the church sponsoring it. Some of the church members chose not to attend because of the situation and it was their right to do so.

My cousin just recently got married and it was incredibly coincidental that although she said she just couldn't invite everyone in the family, the ones that didn't receive invitations were the ones who were outspoken about the fact that she was living with her boyfriend before they were married. Judging by the pics she had more friends than family there so I at least know where her heart is. I would've at least sent a gift had I been invited.

My best friend knew what she was doing was wrong and at least tried a temporary solution - she moved out until they were married.

My cousin refused to see that what she was doing was wrong and defended her actions based on her previous marriage.

In both cases, the teachings of the church said that living together before marriage was wrong.

 

[Gishin]

That sounds like some remarkably bad advice. Don't have sex, don't live together, don't do nuttin til marriage... how are you supposed to know your spouse you're supposed to spend the rest of your life with?

 

[Roxie The Box Inspector]

After Hamilton admitted that her child had been conceived about three weeks before her February 20, 2009, wedding, the school fired her.


"Jarretta was asked not to return because of a moral issue that was disregarded, namely fornication, sex outside of marriage," the letter reads. "The employment application, which she filled out, clearly states that as a leader before our students we require all teachers to maintain and communicate the values and purpose of our school."​

I am disregarding the issue of whether this action was right or wrong and only addressing whether this private school has the
right to set up standards for faculty and students, and enforce
them. I think as a private, religous institution they should have
that right. If it were a public institution, that would be another issue.

Personally, I would not have fired her.

​

 

[PreachersWife2004]

That sounds like some remarkably bad advice. Don't have sex, don't live together, don't do nuttin til marriage... how are you supposed to know your spouse you're supposed to spend the rest of your life with?

I spent an awful lot of time with my husband before we got married. I didn't have to have sex with him before hand to know he was the right guy for me. I didn't have to live with him to know that either...

It's a little thing called communication.

 

[lawtonfogle]

In both cases, the teachings of the church said that living together before marriage was wrong.

What? I can understand the church saying that sex before marriage is wrong. I can understand the church saying that living together before marriage is risky due to temptation. I can understand the church saying that living together before marriage is risky because it increases the chance of divorce (it actually does, at least if you do it a long time before marriage). But why would it be inherently wrong?

 

[lawtonfogle]

That sounds like some remarkably bad advice. Don't have sex, don't live together, don't do nuttin til marriage... how are you supposed to know your spouse you're supposed to spend the rest of your life with?

That is nothing. If you have ever been to a 'True Love Waits' service, you'll sometimes hear that you shouldn't touch before marriage.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What? I can understand the church saying that sex before marriage is wrong. I can understand the church saying that living together before marriage is risky due to temptation. I can understand the church saying that living together before marriage is risky because it increases the chance of divorce (it actually does, at least if you do it a long time before marriage). But why would it be inherently wrong?

It puts a stumbling block in front of Christians.

 

[lawtonfogle]

It puts a stumbling block in front of Christians.

There comes a point where you cannot just use that reasoning, as it makes it a sin to do anything. At some point, you have to go to the other guy and tell them they need to start watching where they are going. And this seems past that point.

Would not having intimate (but non-sexual) dating relationships do the same? If it did, would such relationships be sinful?

Would the mere act of physical contact in a relationship, if it caused another to stumble, be a sin?

It is one thing if you are directly causing them to stumble (offering them a beer, ect.), it is another when they are stumbling just because they notice what (non-sinful) thing you are doing.

 

[JCFantasy23]

It it just me, or does that attitude seem to increase the risk someone will just hide it by getting an abortion?

Think of a baby shower as a congratulations for not deciding to cover it up, for accepting the mistake and not having an abortion.

And always remember, not every woman who has a child outside of wedlock had a choice in the matter.

I don't see it causing more of a chance of abortion....although for some perhaps if the church is all they have? I think it's more a danger of giving Christians more of a bad name than we already have. Babies are to be celebrated and welcomed.

 

[Catherineanne]

Oh please, the idea that you would actually bring Jesus' conception into this is wild, considering he was conceived by the HOLY GHOST. You know full well what we're talking about here.

It is certainly valid, because there was speculation around Jesus' birth, which Josephus is well aware of. Not everyone believed that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit; there were other versions, which I am not about to repeat here, but some even said who the 'real' father was, and it wasn't God, nor Joseph.

And even if that were not the case, we are told that inasmuch as we do something to anyone, we do it to the Lord.

Therefore, the analogy stands, on both historic and theological grounds.

 

[Billnew]

I understand peoples oppinions on premarital sex, and living together, IMO its up to the two people and the god they believe in to decide if its right for them.
I also believe if you work for an organization that prides itself on being moral and following the beliefs set forth in the bible, that you should attempt to live up to those expectations. She did something that could not be concealed, and someone pointed out the immorality of her actions, thus the organization had to fire her, because she dealt directly with impressionable kids. All sin is equal, would you want an alcoholic teaching children morals? Would you want an unrepentant thief teaching morals to kids? She is a proven adulterer(biblical definition*, not legal), thus she has sinned while teaching children morals.
*having sex outside of wedlock, having sex with someone that you are not married too being the definition I am using. as opposed to the legal definition of having sex with someone while married to someone else, or having sex with someone that is married to somone else.