Pregnancy costs teacher her job. How would you vote???

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

It is in reference to blue collar tv. Jeff Foxworthy's redneck show has Larry the Cable Guy who uses this phrase.

It annoys me too in this venue. I feel like it is a big slam towards women.

K

---

Thanks K, but what does it mean???

[Bob Sands]

Nico, I use this term Get-er-done in this context because of all the simple, hang on to our standards answer, with no creative thought being given, just a rush to judgment. Get the task done, said in more polite lingo, but I meant it to be brash as Foxworthy uses it, with the lack of compassion shown by this group, (some). No, Nico, your mind is working overtime, it does not stand for, Get her done. Get your mind out of the gutter, huh!!

[Nicodema]

Sorry, I still don't get it ... do you mean to say you are telling them to go ahead and do it even though you disagree with them for doing it? Like you said, "anyone pro-removal/pro-firing ... get er done" -- were you telling them to go ahead with their removal or firing then? Sorry I just don't get it!

p.s. "K" is the one who said it was a slam on women, not me. I just plain don't get it.

[Bob Sands]

It was an expression of an attitude I perceived from those rushing to judgment. They have a contract, I was being a little facetious, saying, you have a right to "Get-er-done" but like the phrase, not too much compassion or couth is demonstrated taking this abrupt action without some thought. I was making fun of those that choose not to give it a little more thought. If you have seen Foxworthy's show, the expression is, Get something done at any cost, when you are in a hurry, without much thought. I am not condoning, but with the contract in place, Ron Lambert et al, have the right to Get-er-done, that is to terminate her contract. K, you should get your mind out of the gutter!!!

[Nicodema]

Thanks for the explanation Bob -- I think I get the idea somewhat now.

[Ron Lambert]

OK, Nicodema, I see you are coming at this differently than someone like Bevin might be. But you keep focusing on the one example of Jesus not condemning the woman caught in adultery, and you ignore the example of Jesus' own direct testimony when He said in Revelation 3:19: "Him whom I love, I rebuke and chasten."

You suggest that there must be some other way to uphold standards than using pumitive measures. But there is no other way, except just words. We see from Rev. 3:19 that there is a place for words of rebuke. But there is also a place for actual chastisement. If you know of any other way in heaven or earth to uphold standards without taking some form of punitive measures, then please tell me what they might be.

As for Bob's "Get-er-done" remark, I had never heard or read that before, so it was totally meaningless to me. In context with his other remarks in other posts, I assumed he intended it in a sarcastic manner, so I just ignored it as having no content.

Look, you folks who seem to think the church is always wrong whenever it applies discipline to any of its employees for violating the terms of their contract as well as church standards, how else do you think the church can enforce its contracts and hold its employees accountable for failing to adher to church standards? This case is not about just some tradition the church dreamed up, it is about the seventh commandment, and Seventh-day Adventists profess to be a commandment-keeping church as one of its identifying marks as the remnant church of Bible prophecy--right up there with having the Spirit of Prophecy.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

OK, Nicodema, I see you are coming at this differently than someone like Bevin might be. But you keep focusing on the one example of Jesus not condemning the woman caught in adultery, and you ignore the example of Jesus' own direct testimony when He said in Revelation 3:19: "Him whom I love, I rebuke

and chasten."

You suggest that there must be some other way to uphold standards than using punitive measures. But there is no other way, except just words. We see from Rev. 3:19 that there is a place for words of rebuke. But there is also a place for actual chastisement. If you know of any other way in heaven or earth to uphold standards without taking some form of punitive measures, then please tell me what they might be.

---

Ron I don't think you read the scripture you quoted very carefully. Jesus stated, "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten." He did not state, "As many as I love, I delegate to other sinners the job of attempting to set them straight." In other words, Jesus is stating that HE rebukes and chastens. Do we trust Him to accomplish His work? Not if we are constantly co-opting His place and presuming it to be ours.

When erring, sinful human beings presume to step in and do His work for Him, it only gets in the way. The question is not what other measure remains if we discard punitive measures. The question is do we or do we NOT trust Jesus to take care of such matters Himself? The Bible is clear on this point. Jesus Himself states that when He, the Spirit of Truth (Holy Spirit) is come, He will convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. If that does not cover rebuking and chastening, then I don't know what does. It is the job of the Holy Spirit, NOT you or I, to convict the human heart of right and wrong. When we attempt to take measures into our own hands and "play God" with other people, we only complicate matters, mess things up, and make it that much more difficult for the Holy Spirit to do His job because we inevitably bruise the heart and molest the spirit with our self-righteous mucking about.

I can tell you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this, and you are going to continue to argue that erring, sinful human beings somehow have the right to meddle in this fashion. But the example of Jesus -- not just with the woman taken in adultery but throughout the Gospels -- and even the words of Jesus to which you yourself point do not substantiate that. It is JESUS who does the rebuking and chastening, not us. I don't know how you can read that statement and automatically apply it to some mysterious delegation to some erring, sinful being to do those things, when only Jesus has the right and the authority -- not to mention the ability to reach the heart.

Let me tell you something. It does NOT feel good to be rebuked and chastened by the True and Living God Himself. It is a painful, upsetting experience, not to mention a scary one. For any of us mere human beings -- erring, sinful, flawed ourselves -- to have the unmitigated gall to think we have any right whatsoever to impose further pain, suffering, and humiliation upon another in that situation is despicable, deplorable, unconscionable. How dare we? Who do we think we are, anyway?

I'm probably belaboring the point with too many words here. I feel frustrated at my own lack of communication skill. The bottom line is this: you can't point to a verse in Scripture stating that JESUS is the one to do the rebuking and chastening as a means of substantiating an argument that it is to be done by erring mortals. Nowhere in that passage does Jesus delegate; to the contrary, He states that HE rebukes and chastens. We can either get out of the way and let Him do His job, or we can attempt to play God, do His job for Him, and make the kind of mess of things this ludicrous, presumptuous course always results in.

[Ron Lambert]

Nicodema, Jesus set us just as much an example in Rev. 3:19 as in John 8:3-11 (the woman taken in adlutery). If you want to argue that in Rev. 3:19 only Jesus can rebuke and chasten, then consistency demands that you must also say that in John 8:3-11 only Jesus can forgive and say "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more." If you will not accept both as examples for us to follow, then neither can be an example for us to follow.

Let's be reasonable. The church has an obligation to uphold righteous standards, AND TO DEFEND ITS OWN IDENTITY as a commandment-keeping church. If the church does not punish those who violate their contract and who betray the righteous standards the church is charged by God to uphold, then the church is accepting and embracing sin, not just the sinner. If the church does not take action to dismiss those who violate what the church believes, then a flood of Jesuits, or New Age spiritualists, or outright Atheists could misrepresent themselves long enough to get hired to teach in our church schools, then they could never be fired, no matter what they taught our children.

[Stan]

How would the thoughts differ if this was a Pastor (male) who impregnated a woman? or a Pastor (single female) who was having a child out of wedlock. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

[there buster]

This is a typical boomer-style debate, considering only the welfare of the teacher.

And yes, Nico, it can be for the benefit of the teacher. But frankly, she's not the major party concerned here.

Jesus also said, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Matt 18:6

Whoever raised the issue about caffeine, I have this to say: Show me young women whose lives have been severely damaged by caffeine and we might talk.

So many young women end up single, with children by different fathers, desperately trying to make a life for themsleves and their children. There are multiple causes for this, but the example of a high-profile person such as a teacher like this will only make things worse. I've worked with young people for forty years, and I can hear them now. "Look at Mrs. So-and-so. She had sex before marriage, but they got married, and everything's fine." Just one more excuse.

This isn't about punishment or vindictiveness, this is about consequences.

As to lottery tickets, well, there's another issue, and that's visibility. Winning the lottery would make one visible.

Eating out on Sabbath? Don't know that there's any consensus on that.

They've been compassionate, not taking the most severe option. But they've also demonstrated to the children that behavior has consequences. They've also honored a commitment to the parents.

This "cast the first stone" rationalization is focusing on one aspect of Jesus teaching, ignoring the circumstances, and applying it where it pleases us. Those who brought the "woman taken in adultery" were her customers--they were complicit in her sin.

If we universalize and absolutize the saying about "he who is without sin," then no one could ever act against any evildoer.

[bevin]

Ed. To put this absolutely bluntly...

what effect do you think such ill-treatment of a woman who was presumably engaged (for an unknown period of time) prior to the pregnancy have? Small children can not count to 9 months. They are not the ones who would have been effected.

Like I said, there is an upside to this story. It helps people see how badly some part of the SDA church treat people.

Go pick up your stones. You need them to maintain your sanctimonious stoning.

If this woman and her fiancee had been attending an evangelistic seminar when they wed, the church would have welcomed them in with open arms and within a year had them teaching Youth SS Class.

Because she was already in the fold, she was instead given the Right Boot Of Fellowship.

/Bevin

[there buster]

Quote:

---

what effect do you think such ill-treatment of a woman who was presumably engaged (for an unknown period of time) prior to the pregnancy have? Small children can not count to 9 months. They are not the ones who would have been effected.

---

Callling it ill-treatment does not make it so. Quite the contrary. Her contract makes her subject to immediate dismissal. That is not happening.

I have actually been a school principla, and I have taught small children. You're correct, they cannot count to nine. I don't know if you forgot, failed to read, or simply ignored the point that the whole school knows about this. I can tell you, virtually every student from 6th grade and up are watching this carefully. I have worked the junior high kids for almost 40 years. This is not a guess.

Quote:

---

You need them to maintain your sanctimonious stoning.

---

I have not characterized your attitude or attributed sick "needs" to you. Nor have I said my position was morally superior. I have simply explained where the reality is.

That you need to resort to personal attacks is an indictment of your position. Perhaps at some time your compassion will extend to Christians you disagree with.

Quote:

---

If this woman and her fiancee had been attending an evangelistic seminar when they wed, the church would have welcomed them in with open arms and within a year had them teaching Youth SS Class.

---

I would have welcomed them as well. As far as teaching SS Youth class, almost certainly not. Not because of anything to do with pregnancy, but because Youth class is no place for new believers.

"To put it bluntly," you don't know what you're talking about, and resorting to personal attacks demonstrates the poverty of your position.

By the way, has anyone seen Bravus?

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Let's be reasonable.

---

I am being reasonable. I am following Jesus Christ, not the Pharisees. I am not the one here who is resorting to extreme hysteria and paranoia that if I cannot whack my fellow man over the head for failing to uphold God's standards, all hell and chaos will break loose. Ron, we have 2,000 years of church history putting your punitive model into practice and making a royal oppressive mess of things. No one has yet tried Jesus' way -- where we recognize that we as sinners have no place to "cast a stone" at someone else for his or her sin and where we get out of the way and permit Jesus to do the rebuking and chastening. I don't mean to be rude but it sure sounds to me like you just plain don't trust Jesus Christ to get His work done. You think human sinners must take matters into their own hands. I'm telling you we have 2,000 years of history proving it just plain doesn't work.

I don't know how much in touch you are with all these "atheists and new age spiritualists" that you invoke so freely as spectres to populate your fears, but I happen to know some of these people and I happen to know in 8 or 9 cases out of 10, their opposition or disinterest in Christianity is directly fueled by so-called Christians presuming it to be their place to dictate to others how to live, including the imposition of penalty and suffering should said others disagree or choose otherwise. By their own admission, their problem is not with Jesus Christ Himself but with the plethora of Pharisees and self-righteous busybodies who imagine they've a divine mandate to make other people's lives a living hell in the interest of coercing conformity to some moral standard.

As for your slick wordsmithing games concerning the "two examples" allow me to again clarify the reality of the situation. In the case of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus' message is clear: let the one who is without sin be first to cast the stone. I'm not talking about His example here but about His clear statement. The statement you quote from Revelation 3 actually substantiates and supports this, because again, Jesus is stating that HE rebukes and chastens those He loves. In BOTH instances the message is clear: Jesus is the one who has the rightful place to handle the situation. As the sinless One, He alone may pass judgment and determine whether rebuke or chastening is needed and required, and if so, it is His to render, not ours.

Now you may continue to argue this all you please, but I understand this as a tremendously vital principle. Let me save you some time here: you will never succeed in convincing me that you have the right to hurt me or cause me pain in response to my doing wrong, especially if the wrong in question is a matter of my private life which is none of your business in the first place. BUT even if it's the kind of wrong where I wrong you directly, scripture mandates that you turn the other cheek and repay evil with good, and you are responsible for obeying that mandate regardless of whether I am being obedient to God or not. That is how Scripture presents our spiritual responsibility, and THAT is how standards are to be upheld: by each of us making certain we individually choose to uphold them in our OWN lives and exhorting and encouraging one another to be faithful and do likewise in the positive sense.

Quote:

---

The church has an obligation to uphold righteous standards, AND TO DEFEND ITS OWN IDENTITY as a commandment-keeping church.

---

Which it accomplishes more powerfully by its members LIVING those standards themselves. Nothing but human arrogance is served by attempting to impose pain, hardship, suffering or retribution upon someone who has erred or fallen short of those standards. There is nothing holy in that impulse whatsoever. That entire impulse stems from the sin of lusting for control over another. It is the product not of true righteousness but of smug arrogance and grasping after control. We are not called in Christ to control our brothers and sisters. We are called in Christ to learn self-control, which includes tempering the illicit desire to rule over our neighbor.

Quote:

---

If the church does not punish those who violate their contract and who betray the righteous standards the church is charged by God to uphold, then the church is accepting and embracing sin...

---

Yes, I am familiar with the fallacious belief that is used to justify the sinful human lust to control others. It is a complete falsehood, however. Just another clean and holy sounding lie of the enemy to confuse sincere souls on this matter.

Quote:

---

If the church does not take action to dismiss those who violate what the church believes, then a flood of Jesuits, or New Age spiritualists, or outright Atheists could misrepresent themselves long enough to get hired to teach in our church schools, then they could never be fired, no matter what they taught our children.

---

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out all fear. I place no credence in arguments based upon paranoiac scenarios, sorry.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

If this woman and her fiancee had been attending an evangelistic seminar when they wed, the church would have welcomed them in with open arms and within a year had them teaching Youth SS Class.

Because she was already in the fold, she was instead given the Right Boot Of Fellowship.

---

This is true ...

[Bob Sands]

Ed Dickerson, you need a little more creativity and compassion in your administrative decisions. In your case, my expression is meaningful,

Get - er -done.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

This is a typical boomer-style debate, considering only the welfare of the teacher.

And yes, Nico, it

can

be for the benefit of the teacher. But frankly, she's not the major party concerned here.

---

I'm not a "boomer" ... I'm not that old, Ed. Woodstock was before I was even in kindergarten ...

Quote:

---

I've worked with young people for forty years, and I can hear them now. "Look at Mrs. So-and-so. She had sex before marriage, but they got married, and everything's fine." Just one more excuse.

---

Excuse for what? Come on, this is just unrealistic. You can't erase the millions of women who have sex out of wedlock and get pregnant as a result. They exist. Making an example of one of them is not going to remove the millions of others from existence, nor take away whatever "excuse" they provide to someone looking for an excuse.

Quote:

---

This isn't about punishment or vindictiveness, this is about consequences.

---

Erm, consequences are natural outgrowths of a cause. They are the natural results of a course. Human beings choosing to impose hardship or penalty upon another human being is NOT a "consequence". It is a willful choice that is NOT necessary and NOT a natural result. Thus this IS about punishment. Perhaps not vindictiveness, but yes, punishment, retribution. It is the sinful human impulse to want to lash out and create pain for someone else either as a means of attempting to control them or more to the point, as a means of slaking the selfish desire to control them in lieu of the fact that one cannot.

Quote:

---

They've been compassionate, not taking the most severe option. But they've also demonstrated to the children that behavior has consequences.

---

Five year olds don't understand about sex. They are not old enough to grasp the concepts involved here at all. All they know is someone took their teacher away. The fact that teacher got punished for something they can't even comprehend is more likely to instill trauma than common sense. In order for a child to HEALTHFULLY process negative reinforcement they MUST be capable of comprehending the wrong -- what it is that was wrong, what it is that is expected, what the nature of the wrong is -- or else it is just more arbitrary and traumatic.

Quote:

---

This "cast the first stone" rationalization is focusing on one aspect of Jesus teaching, ignoring the circumstances, and applying it where it pleases us.

---

No it isn't. You might disagree with my perspective, fine, but kindly do not put words in my mouth or motives in my heart concerning why I hold it or what holding it presumably constitutes. It is nothing of the sort.

Quote:

---

If we universalize and absolutize the saying about "he who is without sin," then no one could ever act against any evildoer.

---

According to the scriptures, we are to repay evil with good and turn the other cheek. Those seemed pretty "universal" and "absolute" statements to me, and that is talking about when someone wrongs me directly and personally. How much moreso, then, when someone errs in their own private life which is not my business to begin with?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

I place no credence in arguments based upon paranoiac scenarios, sorry.

---

Just a few years ago, the scenario we're discussing today would have been seen as a fantasy. The examples may be extreme to make a point, but the point is valid.

This is about as clear a situation as you'll find. He's right, if we can't act now, there's no way of telling where this ends.

The idea that they're treated differently because they're already members is, well, obvious and Scriptural as well. "Much is required of those to whom much has been given." This teacher was given a job, the sacred responsibility of teaching young children, the confidence of an entire church body. What is being required in return? That she honor her promise.

Once again, this is not guesswork. I've been a teacher, principal, and administrator in SDA schools. You know what the requirements of the job are going in. You know the hopes and expectations of the church, the parents, and the young people themselves. If you don't know these things, you're not wise enough to be teaching. If you do, you know better than to complain when people simply ask you to keep your promises.

She signed a contract, and in so doing, made a legally binding promise. Now some think it's unfair that she's being held to her word.

If nothing's done, all the children will learn one lesson: You can't expect adults to keep their promises.

Yes, they will get that message. And their trust in God, as well as teachers and parents, will be degraded. It may be years before they can articulate it, but it won't be long before they begin to act out on it, testing boundaries in an effort to find stability. Teenagers will start immediately.

[Bob Sands]

Quote:

---

Bob,

I am not sure how anything I might say further could be received as either

genuine or anything more than party line. I am sorry for the painful

things you've experienced within the Seventh-day Adventist community, and

as a part of that community I apologize for how we may have treated you.

Thank you for your questions and registering your thoughts. They are not

received lightly.

Larry Lichtenwalter, Senior Pastor

Village SDA Church

---

Here's Pastor Larry's latest response. At least he admits he has nothing more than the party line to offer. I do appreciate his words of compassion to me personally, but again all talk and no action!!!!

[there buster]

Quote:

---

You can't erase the millions of women who have sex out of wedlock and get pregnant as a result.

---

Non sequitur.

Quote:

---

It is the sinful human impulse to want to lash out and create pain for someone else either as a means of attempting to control them or more to the point, as a means of slaking the selfish desire to control them in lieu of the fact that one cannot.

---

I've been in on these decisions. There may be one in twenty who thinks as you project that they do. But in my direct experience, almost NOBODY wants to do this. Almost NOBODY enjoys this. The only reason we go through the pain and criticism is because we believe we have a duty.

For every ONE who appears eager to do this, there are TEN who make the kind of charges you are making here.

Quote:

---

Five year olds don't understand about sex. They are not old enough to grasp the concepts involved here at all.

---

Five-year-olds, as I keep pointing out, are not the only ones involved.

I'm not going to get involved in a debate about your ideas of what 5yos need.

Quote:

---

but kindly do not put words in my mouth or motives in my heart concerning why I hold it or what holding it presumably constitutes.

---

How about this. I'll quit saying the terrible "you're ignoring" phrase, if you'll deal with these:

"willful choice," "punishment," " want to lash out and create pain," "slaking the selfish desire to control them."

--and just in one post.

"kindly do not put motives" in the heart of people you don't know at all.

[Taylor]

Bob wrote a letter to the pastor of this woman's church and this is what that pastor said in return:

"I am not sure how anything I might say further could be received as either genuine or anything more than party line."

Then Bob said: "At least he admits he has nothing more than the party line to offer."

Bob I don't know this pastor or you, having never met either one of you personally. However, I think you need to read this again. In no way was he saying he was offering you a party line. He said "I am not show how anything I might say further could be RECEIVED as either GENUINE or a Party Line". He isn't trying to give you a party line, at least not from his perspective. He is simply saying that no matter what he says, he is afraid you will take it not genuine and a party line.

Give this pastor the benefit of the doubt. He might be a really nice guy. There is usually way more than one side of the story and with HIPA rules he can't discuss the details. I think you can't judge either the teacher, nor the pastor untill you've walked in their shoes.

Just my opinion. Not meant to be any personal attack on anyone, nor am I an any way trying to pick a fight. I still say I like you Bob, even when we disagree.

Taylor

[K]

Quote:

---

[:"green"]Once again, this is not guesswork. I've been a teacher, principal, and administrator in SDA schools. You know what the requirements of the job are going in. You know the hopes and expectations of the church, the parents, and the young people themselves. If you don't know these things, you're not wise enough to be teaching. If you do, you know better than to complain when people simply ask you to keep your promises.

[/]

---

People make mistakes Ed. Discipline is supposed to draw people near instead of push them away.

I don't have all the experience you have, and I sure haven't seen all that you have seen. All I do know is that when I sat on the school board and dealt with a similar situation, it wasn't handled your way. She finished her year, and was not rehired. Today she and her husband are still members of our church.

What impact did it have on the children at school????Nobody got the idea that sex outside of marriage was ok. My children felt that we had compassion on a very difficult situation, and I even hired her outside of church to teach my children piano because I knew she needed the extra money. My X hired her husband to do some extra work because it is important when things are out of whack that we as Christians come together to help make a bad situation better. Love, support, compassion and caring should be the hallmarks of all our decisons concerning church members. I think Jesus expects that from us.

K

[Bob Sands]

Taylor, nicely parsed, but he still is not doing anything out of the ordinary or different than the party line. Creativity and Compassion I still believe to be lacking in this story. Here is the local reporter's take on it:

Quote:

---

Dear Lou Mumford:

I am an alumnus of Andrews University and I am embarassed for that

University, her alma mater also, and the SDA churches in that area.

This is not exactly the way to convince non-SDAs about their

compassion. I would encourage her to consult an attorney about any

kind of confidentiality violation. She being a rookie first year

teacher was probably so happy about her marriage and pregnancy that

she expected everyone else would be. She'll make more money outside

the SDA system, you can count on that.

Bob Sands

St. Louis, Missouri

Mr. sands, thanks for writing. I doubt ms. John would have success legally,

as I'm sure her contract with the school system does indeed include some

type of morals clause. That being said, I'm sure also she has made some

church/school officials uncomfortable since she came out with her story.

Maybe they'll think twice when faced with a similar situation in the future.

Lou m.

---

I think Mr. Mumford is wrong about the SDAs in Michigan, I think they are the "Get-er-done" type. They would do the same the next time.

[bevin]

Post deleted by bevin

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You can't erase the millions of women who have sex out of wedlock and get pregnant as a result.

---

Non sequitur.

---

It is not a non sequitur at all. You made it clear in your post that the whole purpose of dealing with this as the church board (committee, whatever) has done is in order to communicate that behavior results in consequences, and to avoid having her actions become one more excuse for young people to make ("she turned out OK ..." etc.). My point -- perhaps poorly expressed -- was simply this: that heaping the onus of all that upon this one person "caught out" in a sin is NOT going to erase the millions of others out there who form just such an "excuse" for those looking for an "excuse". Making this one woman an example only scapegoats her in lieu of the millions of others who have done as she has done over whom the SDA church has no "control" -- that is, is in no position to impose penalty upon.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It is the sinful human impulse to want to lash out and create pain for someone else either as a means of attempting to control them or more to the point, as a means of slaking the selfish desire to control them in lieu of the fact that one cannot.

---

I've been in on these decisions. There may be one in twenty who thinks as you project that they do. But in my direct experience, almost NOBODY wants to do this. Almost NOBODY enjoys this. The only reason we go through the pain and criticism is because we believe we have a duty.

---

It has been my experience that those who BELIEVE they "have a duty" ARE in fact those who use that as an excuse to cover up their desire to have control over other people's lives. That's the whole authoritarian trip in a nutshell, Ed: control-freakery and busybody-ness justified in the name of "duty". "Duty" is the lie people sell themselves on to avoid confronting the bald fact of the true origin of the authoritarian impulse. They have been taught all their lives that this is supposedly something "good" and they desperately need to believe themselves "good" for doing it.

That has been MY experience.

Quote:

---

For every ONE who appears eager to do this, there are TEN who make the kind of charges you are making here.

---

It's not about being "eager". There are all kinds of things people tell themselves -- I am reminded of the old chestnut "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" as a prime example -- although at LEAST with THAT one we are talking about a clear case in which human authority is legitimate, namely, parenting a child. This woman is fully grown and the board is not her parent.

I totally get your point about her breaking her contract, that she knew -- or should have known -- what was expected/required of her in her position, etc. Those are valid points. And I have to confess I'm investing a lot in arguing the other side right now but that doesn't mean I'm 100% sold on the direction I'm debating from. My purpose is not to establish this particular direction as the "right" one but to draw out certain things for examination more closely in the overall picture. It's probably a no-brainer for anyone reading that I have a real problem with the concepts of human authority and social controls in human group dynamics -- so some of this is an exercise for me to explore those issues for myself. I'm just letting you know this so you don't have to approach the matter as if I'm closed-minded to what you're saying just because I'm debating it. In general I tend to respect your point of view (well, in all matters but one that I can think of) so you don't need to be on the defensive with me. It's not about that.

Nico

[there buster]

Quote:

---

People make mistakes Ed. Discipline is supposed to draw people near instead of push them away.

---

Uh huh. People make mistakes. Some of them have greater consequences than others. Making that clear is a very important part of the teacher's calling.

"Discipline" is from the same root as "disciple." It takes many forms; whether it draws or repels is in large part a matter of how one chooses to react to it. Peter and Judas were both discipled by the greatest teacher in the universe. One was drawn, despite being told "Get thee behind me, Satan," and one was repelled, despite every effort.

And discipline is about more than just one person. Everyone is discipled when one is disciplined. The other disciples learned when Peter was disciplined; when James and John called for fire from heaven and were reproved.

This board acted wisely, given the information we have. Sounds like yours did as well, based on the scant information you provided. Circumstances alter cases. Did this board, or yours, act with Solomonic, godlike wisdom? That's beyond me. But both acted charitably and responsibly, again, given the facts that we have before us.