Teacher fired because she got pregnant out of wedlock...

[Tyr]

The problem there is that, from what little we know, the rule DOES appear as though it's being applied fairly. Since the first evidence that she was having premarital sex was when she got pregnant, there does not appear to be any rule that an employee must affirmatively inform the administration that they are doing anything that might be grounds for dismissal.

Presumably, if a male employee were found out in violation of the morals clause in the contract, he would also be subject to summary dismissal as well. Until that happens (or comes out, if the situation HAS happened), the legal assumption has to be that the rule is applied fairly across the board -- innocent unless proven guilty, and all that. Now if it was discovered that an unmarried male employee sought medical care under the school's insurance policy for, say, a venereal disease -- just to keep it in the same arena of unapproved sexual activity -- and he ws NOT dismissed, THEN there would be grounds for a discrimination case. Until and unless that happens, however, the court has to assume that the rule is being/would be applied equally in all situations.

Unfortunately, its a lot easier for men to get away with it, sheer biology alone has helped to perpetuate this double standard.

So....a religious funded school has a morality clause that they make their employees sign? Next you'll be telling me Gail has red hair, and Shel likes ferrets.

Sucks, but I agree with Mac, the fact that this is a religious school means it's protected by the first amendment.

Oh and I'm just in time for the "this is why Christianity sucks" argument. Followed by the "Believers can't think for themselves," and my personal favorite "believers are holding back social progress" argument.

Does anyone ever go after the Jews for the old testament? As I recall we co-oped that whole collection of books with them.

I wonder if it's too late to go down to the local gas station and purchase a pack of my alcoholic beverage of choice, I got 6 minutes....yep...will never make it in time...

[zemo]

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

If a non-betrothed woman is raped, she must marry her attacker.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

If you're raped within the boundaries of a city, then clearly you didn't fight hard enough and you deserve to be executed. That's what that says. I could find support for incest and more direct support of rape, but that would require the parables, which would be a whole different biblical debate.

I'm not a biblical scholar, but from what I understand, Deuteronomy is Moses dictating the laws as God has dictated them to him. The Ten Commandments are mentioned, but they are not the bulk of the rules.

Are you interpreting "lay hold on her" as rape? Because that's the only way how what you are saying makes sense. I have interpreted this whole paragraph as them having consensual sex, but out of wedlock. And the second part as consensual cheating. I guess the problem is that we're seeing not even a translation, but a translation that happened ages later than the original document. I mean, even the name of the book itself came to pass because of incorrect translation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy

This link (or more in particular this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of...teronomic_code) however supports your reading of the particular parts, in regards to rape. Mind, we're talking about how Mose tells the Israelites to behave in their new country. Nowhere does it say that everybody afterwards should adhere to these laws. Which then again leads back to the point that the religion itself isn't particularly good or evil, but how people choose to interpret it and act upon this interpretation is. I mean, all of Christian teachings have been reworked a dozen times since that era (once by the son of the Big One himself), so you have to be willfully obstuse to cherry pick.

Funnily enough, Jesus was complaining about this blind adherence himself, when he asked whether people would let their children drown if it meant to walk more than the alotted amount of steps on a Sabbat.

[The Mandarin]

the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

If you're raped within the boundaries of a city, then clearly you didn't fight hard enough and you deserve to be executed. That's what that says. I could find support for incest and more direct support of rape, but that would require the parables, which would be a whole different biblical debate.

Sounds like an ancient variation on the "a woman can run faster with her dress up than a man can with his pants around his ankles" saying. And it's bullshit for the same reason: it's absurdly simplistic. Their reasoning seems to be that if you are being raped in a crowded city, why didn't you just scream? Well, maybe he put a knife to your throat and said he'd kill you if you screamed. Maybe he began the rape by punching you so hard you immediately went semi-conscious and didn't have the strength to scream. There are lotsa different reasons why a woman wouldn't or couldn't scream. But those ancients didn't consider any of that, they just said essentially, "eh, bitch was right next door to dozens of people and never screamed for help. She's obviously just a slut who liked being raped. Stone the whore."

[Treacle]

The point is that we already have a precedence for state and federal law overriding religious law. After all, both Old and New Testament are totally down with slavery, and that's illegal in the U.S. today. One's religion does not give one a free pass to ignore the rights of others.

*sent from my mobile device

Edit: In the same vein, one cannot contract away their rights. You couldn't agree to become your neighbor's slave if you owed him a debt, even if your religious beliefs allowed for that option. The notion of inviolable rights becomes meaningless if people are able to violate them due to their varying religious beliefs.

[RobStaeger]

The school’s headmaster, Dr. Ron Taylor, said Samford was fired for violating her contract, which includes a clause about being a “Christian role model,” and that getting married wouldn’t work because her students already knew she was pregnant.

Isn't being engaged and pregnant the very essence of being a Christian role model?

[zemo]

The point is that we already have a precedence for state and federal law overriding religious law. After all, both Old and New Testament are totally down with slavery, and that's illegal in the U.S. today. One's religion does not give one a free pass to ignore the rights of others.

*sent from my mobile device

Edit: In the same vein, one cannot contract away their rights. You couldn't agree to become your neighbor's slave if you owed him a debt, even if your religious beliefs allowed for that option. The notion of inviolable rights becomes meaningless if people are able to violate them due to their varying religious beliefs.

Well yeah, actual law always takes precedence over religious law, which is good.