NC deputy lawsuit: I was fired for refusing to train a woman

Tom Farebrother said:

Also, how would you prove that as a biblical teaching? It could be argued as a principle with roots in other biblical teachings, but the bible doesn't actually teach anything of the sort in any direct way.

Click to expand...

Sure. Ephesians 5:3.

But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

Click to expand...

If you are worried about even the perception of sexual immorality, then you are within your right to avoid that. Besides there is always the possibility of how your WIFE might perceive it.

Hi ES,

I'm not sure that the Scriptures actually teach such a thing. I do know that it has long been Jewish custom that women and men not be alone with each other. It is also a fairly strong custom in the Islamic faith, but again, I'm not sure that such customs are based on any teaching in the Scriptures.

I know of male christian pastors who won't council a female without having someone else nearby and leaving the office door open. I believe that this is more for providing assurance that nothing untoward is going on and trying to stop any kind of gossip, or charge, that something might have happened behind closed doors.

So, my understanding of this issue is that yes, a case can be made that religious practices exist where men believe that they shouldn't be in situations that leave them alone with a woman. However, I believe it is just one of the traditions of religion rather than a teaching of the Scriptures, as Mr. Torres seems to claim. I'm pretty sure though, that the law is going to accept religious traditions as equally valid as specific teachings of any religions holy writings, in determining that something may be against a person's religious beliefs.

As to whether or not he should prevail in this case, I'd want more info on whether or not he should have known or been expected to know that such a situation might come up in the performance of his work. How long has he been training officers and did he let his employer know that he would never be comfortable with training female officers? The article does seem to infer that he had sought religious accommodations in more situations than just this one. I believe that there is a point, where some religious folks can overdo their protections with some hue and cry that their religious values are being abridged.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

essentialsaltes said:

Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant. As long as he believes it sincerely, that's his religious belief.

The US government from its foundation doesn't want to have to decide who is 'correctly' following any particular religion. The founders knew that that road leads to burning people at the stake.

Click to expand...

That sounds extremely exploitable.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA, I love it.

usexpat97 said:

Sure. Ephesians 5:3.

Click to expand...

Hi usexpat,

In reading that passage, I'm not impressed that it precludes men and women from being alone. It merely states that a believer should strive to not have any hint of sexual misconduct. I would think that is referring to any believer actually doing anything that might hint at sexual misconduct.

BTW it also says the same thing about any sinful behavior and specifically greed.

I wonder, if the man is ever alone with himself, is there a possibility that some might consider he's looking at inappropriate content? Is his bank account open for everyone's examination so that there are never any hints that he may be on the take? I'm just saying that if we understand that passage to mean that we should never put ourselves into a situation where one might think we are doing something wrong, then one would pretty much have to live their life as an open book to the public.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

In reading that passage, I'm not impressed that it precludes men and women from being alone. It merely states that a believer should strive to not have any hint of sexual misconduct. I would think that is referring to any believer actually doing anything that might hint at sexual misconduct.

Click to expand...

No, it does not preclude any man, ever, from being alone with a woman. But you said it yourself: it means that a believer should strive not to have a hint of sexual misconduct. And if that officer believes he is in keeping with the Bible not to be alone in a squad car with a woman--for probably more hours in the day than his own wife--then he rightfully wins the judgement against the PD.

I'm sorry, but being alone with a woman for that long does have the potential for a hint, even through no fault of his own. As they say about driving on New Year's Eve: "please don't drive on New Year's Eve. I know you won't drink--but it's the others on the road that I'm worried about."

essentialsaltes said:

I think the implication is that one can be falsely accused.

Click to expand...

usexpat97 said:

That may be true for the tango, but when you're working with Potiphar's wife, it only takes one.

Click to expand...

Fair point. But even this if can often be controlled.

Dave-W said:

"Appearance" being taken to mean if it can possibly be construed to look bad, you have to avoid it.

Click to expand...

My position on this has always been very strong. If accused of impropriety I would suggest the accusers wash out their nasty little minds with sulphuric acid. I am defined by my discernible actions, not by the lurid imaginings of a bunch of self-righteous, interfering busybodies.

If he's worried about giving the appearance of impropriety, he's taking on more risk by donning that uniform than he is by being alone with a woman.

usexpat97 said:

Sure. Ephesians 5:3.



If you are worried about even the perception of sexual immorality, then you are within your right to avoid that. Besides there is always the possibility of how your WIFE might perceive it.

Click to expand...

Sure, you can extrapolate that meaning from it, but it isn't a direct instruction not to be alone with another woman. In practical terms in any job where people frequently work in twos it's an unrealistic proposition. In previous roles I regular had one on one meetings with female staff, the only thing I can say is so what? It's an entirely normal scenario. If someone has an issue with that they may have a problem of some kind.

Dave-W said:

Actually, it is a doctrine in a subset of Christianity, mostly American evangelical and fundamental Christianity.

The origin of the so-called "Billy Graham rule" (aka the Pence rule) was a product of an incident that happened to the famous evangelist back around 1960. He was in New York and staying on the top floor of a high rise hotel. He got into the elevator to go to the lobby for some reason and on his way down a young woman also got into that elevator. Just the 2 of them. Seeing who it was, she immediately disrobed and when the elevator opened in the lobby, she ran out naked screaming "RAPE RAPE!!!!" Quite the stir it caused. And their interpretation of this verse caused even the evangelical community to blame Dr Graham:

1 Thessalonians 5:22 KJV
Abstain from all appearance of evil.​

"Appearance" being taken to mean if it can possibly be construed to look bad, you have to avoid it.

Click to expand...

Is that something that actually happened?

Ophiolite said:

I am defined by my discernible actions, not by the lurid imaginings of a bunch of self-righteous, interfering busybodies.

Click to expand...

But the american evangelical and fundamentalist communities have a lot of those kind of people.

Tom Farebrother said:

Is that something that actually happened?

Click to expand...

yes

Consider what would happen if the female recruit insisted on the same grounds that she could never be left alone with a male officer. I think that most everyone would agree that this would be quite unreasonable for a modern police force.

Nithavela said:

That sounds extremely exploitable.

Click to expand...

but is absolutely correct. It is why the catholic church got to serve alcoholic wine during prohibition, the southwest indian tribes got to eat peyote and hallucinogenic mushrooms (when Psilocybin is illegal) and Timothy Leary got to start a church that dropped acid.

Dave-W said:

But the american evangelical and fundamentalist communities have a lot of those kind of people.

Click to expand...

Then I'll just make sure I have plenty of (metaphorical) sulphuric acid available at bargain basement prices for my next visit to the Deep South.

essentialsaltes said:

Not as far as I know. But even if it did (in 1960) it can't be the origin of the rule. It's part of the 'Modesto Manifesto'

IN 1948, 31-YEAR-OLD Billy Graham was coming off a successful stint as a Youth for Christ evangelist and entering a period of independent ministry that would last almost six decades. His revival team included Bev Shea, Grady Wilson, and Cliff Barrows. The quartet was young and charismatic. As Christianity entered its heady postwar boom, Americans flocked to revivals. Some sought salvation, but others had different aims. Politicians saw the revivals as a hedge against communism; entertainers saw a chance to promote themselves. Temptations loomed. To guard against allegations or the actual abuse of money, sex, and power that had felled previous evangelists, the Graham team decided to take concrete steps to avoid the slightest whiff of controversy.

The team gathered in a hotel room in Modesto, California. They drew up a compact that became known as the “Modesto Manifesto,” though they produced no written document. The manifesto included provisions for distributing money raised by offerings, avoiding criticism of local churches, working only with churches that supported cooperative evangelism, and using official estimates of crowd sizes to avoid exaggeration. These policies would help Graham and his team avoid charges of financial exploitation and hucksterism.

But nothing loomed larger than sex. The most famous provision of the manifesto called for each man on the Graham team never to be alone with a woman other than his wife. Graham, from that day forward, pledged not to eat, travel, or meet with a woman other than Ruth unless other people were present. This pledge guaranteed Graham’s sexual probity and enabled him to dodge accusations that have waylaid evangelists before and since.

Click to expand...

It makes sense in the context, I would say. It’s hard to see how that translates to 2 cops working together.

Dave-W said:

yes

Click to expand...

Hi dave,

Well, I looked into it and all I could come up with was that it was set of rules established by Billy Graham and his immediate entourage in 1948 as they traveled around the country without their wives to hold revivals. The group gathered in a motel room in Modesto CA. and came up with what then called the Modesto Manifesto.

As far as any evidence that I have been able to find, none of the rules outlined in the Modesto Manifesto came about because any of the participants had actually suffered such events. Most of them came about because of expectations that such things 'could' happen and in some cases, had happened to other ministers/preachers/teachers.

I'd be interested in your posting any relevant information as to the incident that you describe actually happening.

God bless,
In Christ, ted