Catholic Teacher Fired

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.
[/quote]

If by vaginal sex you mean what is sometimes referred to as “a cream pie,” you sir are correct and have won 10 internets. You can start anywhere you want though.[/quote]

Cream pie? So it turns out BC looks at porn. Haha[/quote]

No, the word you’re looking for is “looked.”

262

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.
[/quote]

If by vaginal sex you mean what is sometimes referred to as “a cream pie,” you sir are correct and have won 10 internets. You can start anywhere you want though.[/quote]

So sodomy is condoned, then? M/F, for the sake of discussion?

263

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Sure I can. We are unique because of our intellect, brain size and everything that entails. We are certainly unique. Special? No.[/quote]
[/quote]

Many animals have larger brains. Many humans don’t have much intellect. All people have periods in life where they do not posses an intellect, coma, unconscious, even asleep or day dreaming. If that is your definition, an unconscious or mentally retarded person isn’t worthy.

But please, start the convoluted logic. I would like to see how impressive of a contortionist act you can pull off.

Once you break your own back, we can start in on how these “specialness” justifies specific privilege. (hint: another infinitely large logic hole you cannot contort your beliefs to arrive at)[/quote]

Okay we are unique because no other species has 100% the same DNA as us. [/quote]

And no other animal has the same genetic structure as ANY ANIMAL ON THE PLANET. Sorry, that doesn�?�¢??t make us unique at all. Plus, almost every human has different genes which leads to other wholes.

BUT even if we accept this, you are claiming that a fertilized egg IS special? And second, how would this “specialness” (that we share with every life form on the planet) logically result is special rights? Why don’t dolphins also get this specialness for their special DNA?
[/quote]

We are not special, I merely said we are unique from other species and a supernatural aspect is not required to say that[/quote]

Yes, we are unique, just like everything else.

So, you disbelieve human rights. [/quote]

Believe or not, as humans it is in our best interest to enforce human rights.

264

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Was she? Seems there’s some court cases to go through.
[/quote]

Exactly. That’s what the crux of this whole issue is, one perceived set of socially endowed rights vs. another perceived set, which the courts will decide on (in a perfect world, for the sake of clarity). And as I read earlier in this thread, I forget who wrote it, I would bet on an out of court monetary settlement by the school linked to a blanket non disclosure agreement. Ultimately an unsatisfying result for us observers, but such is life. Time will tell.

265

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey BC,

Do you recognize this room?[/quote]

That room looks very familiar. Oh wait…

266

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Was she? Seems there’s some court cases to go through.
[/quote]

Exactly. That’s what the crux of this whole issue is, one perceived set of socially endowed rights vs. another perceived set, which the courts will decide on (in a perfect world, for the sake of clarity). And as I read earlier in this thread, I forget who wrote it, I would bet on an out of court monetary settlement by the school linked to a blanket non disclosure agreement. Ultimately an unsatisfying result for us observers, but such is life. Time will tell.
[/quote]

That was me, and I still think that is what will happen. It is a win-win situation. She will receive a bunch of money and the church doesn’t have to risk it’s use of discriminatory practices on whether or not they can claim a person who teaches only secular classes and has no religious responsibilities or training is a minister.

267

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?

268

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

269

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Was she? Seems there’s some court cases to go through.
[/quote]

Exactly. That’s what the crux of this whole issue is, one perceived set of socially endowed rights vs. another perceived set, which the courts will decide on (in a perfect world, for the sake of clarity). And as I read earlier in this thread, I forget who wrote it, I would bet on an out of court monetary settlement by the school linked to a blanket non disclosure agreement. Ultimately an unsatisfying result for us observers, but such is life. Time will tell.
[/quote]

That was me, and I still think that is what will happen. It is a win-win situation. She will receive a bunch of money and the church doesn’t have to risk it’s use of discriminatory practices on whether or not they can claim a person who teaches only secular classes and has no religious responsibilities or training is a minister.
[/quote]

Thank you for reminding me,I think you are spot on. What an out of court settlement will say to me, as an impartial, uninvolved party, is that the school (or their lawyers,or both) didn’t think their chances of winning were quite as airtight as some of the posters in this thread have presented. I think it would be a win for the teacher, but you mention win/win, do you really view it as win for the school/ church? You don’t think once the payment is made, they will just be opening the door to more suits of the same kind?
Personally, all these out of court settlements always smack of “Ok, we fucked up, but here’s some cash, so stfu and enjoy it”.

270

Oops

271

Now, if the court finds against her, do you guys change your mind, end of controversy? She had no right to renewed contract after all? That’s it. Finished. Nothing more to say.

272

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

Thank you for reminding me,I think you are spot on. What an out of court settlement will say to me, as an impartial, uninvolved party, is that the school (or their lawyers,or both) didn’t think their chances of winning were quite as airtight as some of the posters in this thread have presented. I think it would be a win for the teacher, but you mention win/win, do you really view it as win for the school/ church? You don’t think once the payment is made, they will just be opening the door to more suits of the same kind?
Personally, all these out of court settlements always smack of “Ok, we fucked up, but here’s some cash, so stfu and enjoy it”.[/quote]

I do think it will be a win for the church simply because by the time this gets to a settlement, nobody will care anymore and it will get almost no news coverage, so nobody will know about it and it will not lead to a series of lawsuits like a court ruling would. I guarantee you that this happens more often then we would like to think, but not very many people have the money or the foresight to talk to a lawyer about stuff like employment contracts. This will all get swept under the rug and nothing will change. I, however, and other friends of mine will be bringing this situation up to our students who plan on pursuing a career in education as a warning. I hope more do so as well. I am glad I decided not to accept that position at a Catholic school.

273

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are the children evil? If an act is evil, then the results must be too.[/quote]

I’d like to see your proof for this.

But it’s not.
[/quote]

(1) Getting in-vitro is evil.
(2) Good cannot come out of evil, especially ‘inherently evil’.
(3) Therefore the kids are a result of an evil act and are evil.

Exorcism recommended.
[/quote]

(1)“Getting in-vitro” is not evil. Harvesting human lives, and willfully destroying them in the process of trying to get the one you want is the evil act.
(2) Does the Catholic church not forbid abortion even in the case of rape? You are being willfully ignorant.
(3) See point two above.

Now, a question back at you, do you disagree with point one? Is it morally acceptable to destroy multiple human lives in order to secure one for yourself? Particularly when other means are available?

[/quote]

Personally, the old fashion way is a lot more fun…[/quote]

Plus, raw dog all day. People think Catholics are stodgy with our no condoms thing. Really? Raw dog vs. sterilized sex??? Who’s boring now. [/quote]

Don’t forget only vaginal sex is allowed.
[/quote]

If by vaginal sex you mean what is sometimes referred to as “a cream pie,” you sir are correct and have won 10 internets. You can start anywhere you want though.[/quote]

So sodomy is condoned, then? M/F, for the sake of discussion?[/quote]

Sodomy, in the proper manner, refers to finishing the act in the anal cavity. Theologians are undecided on the matter. I haven’t really looked into that part, it would seem to me that it’d follow the same principal, but I really cannot say.

274

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Was she? Seems there’s some court cases to go through.
[/quote]

Exactly. That’s what the crux of this whole issue is, one perceived set of socially endowed rights vs. another perceived set, which the courts will decide on (in a perfect world, for the sake of clarity). And as I read earlier in this thread, I forget who wrote it, I would bet on an out of court monetary settlement by the school linked to a blanket non disclosure agreement. Ultimately an unsatisfying result for us observers, but such is life. Time will tell.
[/quote]

That was me, and I still think that is what will happen. It is a win-win situation. She will receive a bunch of money and the church doesn’t have to risk it’s use of discriminatory practices on whether or not they can claim a person who teaches only secular classes and has no religious responsibilities or training is a minister.
[/quote]

It’s in her contract, even if not part of the faith she cannot openly go against the dogma of the church. There aren’t many things on that list, but abortion and IVF are. She has no case. They don’t make non-catholics follow the faith, but they do make them follow the rules of the institution. If you are being hired by a religiously affiliated institution, your going to have some rules that pertain to the religion. If you work for PETA and they catch you betting on a dog race, your ass will be fired. If you smoke you cannot work for the American Lung Society.
If she worshiped satan, burned a crucifix, proclaimed that she hates the church or God she would have not had her contract renewed too.

For the record, if anybody read the article she wasn’t fired, she just wasn’t rehired. Her contract was up and they did not offer her another one. They are in no obligation to offer anyone a contract and they have a right to refuse contract renewal to anyone for any reason save for blatant racial discrimination.
Even if she was out right fired she’d still have no case, but not getting a contract makes it even less of a case.

275

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey BC,

Do you recognize this room?[/quote]

No.

276

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms[/quote]

Yeah, but those are government endowed rights, not societal.

277

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey BC,

Do you recognize this room?[/quote]

No.[/quote]

I am in the 20% also…Something tells me that’s a good thing.

278

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if the court finds against her, do you guys change your mind, end of controversy? She had no right to renewed contract after all? That’s it. Finished. Nothing more to say.[/quote]

From my side, yes. End of. That would be a satisfactory conclusion as far as getting a result goes.

Not that I matter or know the intricacies of the case in the least, just what I’ve read on this thread…

279

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, now that we’ve arrived at the lack of inherent rights, there is no inherent right to continued employment with a Catholic school.[/quote]

Actually she was given rights by society[/quote]

Really? society has never given me a single right. Must be a Canada thing. And I am a Canadian Citizen, so what do I get if I go ‘home’?[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms[/quote]

Yeah, but those are government endowed rights, not societal.[/quote]

And who do you think forms the government?

280

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, if the court finds against her, do you guys change your mind, end of controversy? She had no right to renewed contract after all? That’s it. Finished. Nothing more to say.[/quote]

From my side, yes. End of. That would be a satisfactory conclusion as far as getting a result goes.

Not that I matter or know the intricacies of the case in the least, just what I’ve read on this thread…[/quote]

If she loses you won’t be able to find the article, it will be two lines on page 88 with no headline saying she lost. That’s how the media rolls.