As we know, the Bible extols chastity and abhors immorality. The latter is described in part as being sexually active outside marriage. As we know, many faiths and religious leaders constantly preach against it, which can tend to give sex a bad name.

In many faith groups the leaders take it upon themselves to police congregants' lives, as we know. It was pretty embarrassing for me as an adult 'convert' in the Mormon Church sitting in the bishop's office being asked by a man I didn't know if I was sexually active. Intrusive much? The little chat was made 1000x more uncomfortable by the bishop also being a convert and blushing like a choirboy as he probed into my personal business.

Church organizations can make people do wild and crazy stuff. Not of the fun variety.

I am more a fan of letting each individual choose their own way rather than having a top-down structure that calls for the male in charge to be delving into adherents' private spaces.

OTOH, I have to ask (and often don't quite reach a definitive answer in my own mind) how much power and control should any organization, including churches, be able to exert over others, whether employees, volunteers or congregants?

I just read the article linked below about the case of a teacher in a Catholic school in New Jersey who was terminated for "engaging in premarital sex" (this occurred in 2014). The teacher sued under the Civil Rights Act, the case eventually ended up in the Supreme Court and it has just ruled in favour of the school.

I wondered at first how the school knew about the teacher's private life but it seems she was pregnant at the time so at some point it would have become an issue obviously.

The Court ruled that the school followed the Catholic Church's religious tenets, which is allowed under the state's employment law.

So church law trumps anti-discrimination law, at least in this case.

I'm not sure where I'm at on this one. I do think that if you sign on, in effect, in whatever manner, to any place that has rules, regs, laws, standards - whatever you want to call them, especially when it comes to religious environments, there is an obvious expectation that you will comply.

I guess the kids would know that this teacher wasn't married and it would be obvious at some point that she was pregnant. I understand that would not model the school's religious teachings to the satisfaction of those in charge.

I'm not sure about the separation of church and state part, in that the case ended up in the Supreme Court. What if the justices had decided in favour of the teacher? Then the separation part isn't apparent.

I likely wouldn't try to change an institution but rather would just stay away in the first place.

Applying the law in this case seems not terrible to me, although I know that many would likely take issue with the school having so much power over its employees. I see where they're coming from though. But I feel for the teacher who lost her job.

So, yeah, I'd be hopeless as a judge on the court. It seems that law is black and white and yet it turns out not to be the case many times, of which we have ample evidence.

Here's a link to the article - what do you think?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/15/us/new-jersey-catholic-school-premarital-sex-firing/index.html

Here's an article (from 2019) about a Jesuit school that refused to fire a married gay teacher:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/24/us/brebeuf-jesuit-preparatory-school-catholic-church-trnd/index.html


Excerpt:

"Brebeuf issued a statement in June saying it has “respectfully declined” the archdiocese’s directive “that we dismiss a highly capable and qualified teacher due to the teacher being a spouse within a civilly recognized same-sex marriage.”

I love that: The school has"respectfully declined" the directive to boot the gay teacher out.

I'm thinking of Mormons "respectfully declining" the church's 'invitation' to participate in occasions and ways that a member may wish to skip. First to come to mind would be families going without (or bankrupt) trying to send out four or five of their children on "voluntary" missions for the church. Yeah, you're a volunteer but forever marked if you don't follow the prophet's expectations about missions.

Or, especially since Covid, I respectfully decline to participate in the sacrament observance. Too much touching and maybe even wayward spittle and certainly a lower standard of hygiene amongst the bread-passers than most people would wish for.


Sex - the cause of upheaval, accusations, censure, disfellowshipping and unrest.

Yet without it, none of us would be here.

It shouldn't get so tarnished with all the emphasis on the various prohibitions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2023 07:23PM by Nightingale.

"Respectfully decline" is the appropriate response when the LDS church "invites" you to do something.

I'm dreaming I know, but in this day and age, I don't think the Catholic Church (or any church) should be in the business of running schools or anything else besides their church. Public places that involve laws for employers and employees shouldn't have to work around religions who are running side businesses.

It's nice to imagine religion being content minding their own business in their churches without their tentacles into every darn thing causing problems like the one you describe. (Humming Imagine.)

This is only a small step to religions wanting to monitor women's virginity and periods. We shouldn't let religions into our reproductive decisions. This isn't the middle ages anymore.

  
    

Why didn’t you tell us you were expectating? When is it due?

Carrying an expectation is hard on a guy.

What if it's twins?!!

To borrow from another thread, may all your moves be smooth.

You’re kinda old to use the words. “expectation” and “hard on” in the same sentence…don’tcha think?

      
  

Absolutely. That’s why we love it and hate it with equal intensity… All in the same afternoon. A true metaphor for life, condensed into 2 to 4 hours. Lately I’ve found it a lot more fun if I eliminate the expectations by trying to not be so hard on myself.

Hahahahahaha. Now I (finally) get your board nick. :P

Yeah, I couldn't think of a sub line, for once, and so just went with that.

I imagined that it would likely be disappointing to some readers.

Sorry 'bout that.

But I did throw in a few gentle double entendres around and about, just for you Dog.

Churches for centuries operated on the principle that there was a vast gulf between the sexes, and the church owned all the boats. The only way to get from point A to point B was to rent a boat from the church.

It is a variation of the Lyndon B Johnson dictum: grab ‘em by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.

The system was very good for churches, while it lasted.

It was good for Lyndon B Johnson too, while it lasted.

"she was pregnant at the time so at some point it would have become an issue obviously"

Since it was a Catholic school, couldn't she have argued immaculate conception? How would they prove it wasn't?

Good one!

clickbait title

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> clickbait title

No. I just seriously couldn't think of one. After a bunch of years here first time that's happened. I started out "sex...something..." but then couldn't finish the header so just went with it as is.

I'm going to argue that the Catholic school did not terminate the teacher for premarital sex. Pretty much all American Catholics engage in premarital sex. They terminated her for the visible results of same. Kind of a jerk move, but I agree with the court on this one. The weird thing about this case is that the Catholic church is officially opposed to abortion. So the woman followed the church's teachings about not aborting the child, and was punished for doing so. Hypocrites!

The Jesuit school case is interesting. There is a difference between Catholic schools that are run by the diocese (which is roughly equivalent to a very large Mormon stake,) and those which are independent. I'm going to assume that the Jesuit school is independent, which means that it can (and did) thumb its nose at the diocese. Fun times.

...the Jesuit order today is the most liberal of the various Catholic orders. I should also note that Jesuits take their orders from their father general in Rome (he reports directly to the Pope, and this Pope is a Jesuit) and not to the local diocessan hierarchy.

It makes for a very interesting take when the Roman Pope is going one way and the Jesuit father-general is going another...

Wonder if anyone in this predicament has used the defense of "I'm not getting married - so it is not pre-marital sex"?

That's up there with the Sovereign Citizens, "I'm not driving, I'm traveling!"

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's up there with the Sovereign Citizens, "I'm
> not driving, I'm traveling!"

I've seen a few of those people in real life in court. One guy was so obnoxious that the judge had him removed and just proceeded with sentencing right there.

I guess the sovereign citizen found out right there that the judge had jurisdiction over him because he ended up in jail for a few months.

I guess the judge didn't really put him in jail, but provided free room and board.

It only takes a few SovCit YouTube videos to believe in the power of self-delusion.

Every once in a while, one wonders what self-delusions one might be harboring...