Eh, I'm kind of over the slut shaming myself. "At least she wasn't a slut" perpetuates a negative attitude towards women and sex.

If you agree to a set of rules, it's not really any more OK to break them just because. Forgiveness requires penitence, and I don't think she was particularly sorry, nor IMO should she have been. But she shouldn't have worked for that school if she was going to violate the rules and/or was going to fess up to it.

There's breaking the rules and there's getting caught. If you're going to break the rules, then don't get caught. There's nothing more OK about having an abortion (in their minds) and that's a misleading road to go down. She's probably not the only one who's violated the code but she got caught. Just like how "everyone" speeds but only a few people get caught. If the people enforcing this rule are hypocrites and have violated it themselves or allowed others to skate, that's one thing, but you don't really know that one way or the other.

Why is there an assumption that she wants to "reform?" I get the whole forgiveness aspect but if she's not sorry for what she did then she's not really going to go "sin no more" is she?

I hate this aspect of religious schooling and think it should be handled differently, but I think some of the arguments are ridiculous too. I'm basing my opinions on the understanding that she signed a contract. If that's wrong, I'll re-evaluate. But assuming she did, the school had every right to fire her, even if that makes them asshats. And telling them they should have forgiven her instead is trying to tell them what they should believe which is a road that I think we would prefer not to go down ourselves.

I never said there wasn't ANY judgement present, I said the isolated act of admitting why the teacher was fired was not a judgement in itself. If you think it was, you're wrong.

I second what DF said about forgiveness. It would involve expressing remorse and it seems she hasn't (and no one here is saying she should have). Her personal life was her own business and the school shouldn't have asked or told others once they found out IMO. However, they did ask if she'd fornicated and she admitted she had. Presuming there's a clause in this mythical contract that she signed about fornication being an offense worthy of dismissal, she either shouldn't have done it or refused to answer the question based on its impropriety. She instead confessed to breaking a rule, unashamedly and unapologetically. Depending on how the rest of the school found out, her best bet is to sue for a violation of privacy I would think.

Honestly, I think this whole thing is despicable. I grew up in schools like this and I still think it's awful. The school was way out of line in probing into her sex life then discussing it with others after (both of those have some big "ifs" as we don't know the whole story). I don't agree with firing someone whose "questionable morals" have not caused harm to others or themselves, but that's just me. If it's in the paperwork, she had no choice but to comply or receive the sanction she was warned of, as much as that sucks.

Exactly. I personally intend to NEVER work at a place that requires me to give up autonomy of my body, my mind or my beliefs. I may not always have that luxury, a lot of people don't. Food and shelter trump a lot of principles. But that's where I've drawn my line in the sand, hopefully I never have to cross it. But if I signed up for it I'd lie as necessary and hide how I felt, but I wouldn't be shocked if I'd gotten fired either.

I said the school could use this as an example of being able to show the Christian principle of forgiveness. According to Jesus, whether she "expresses remorse" is neither here nor there when it comes to loving others as you would love yourself. If he'd been so cutthroat it's unlikely he would have such a huge following today. Of course, most people aren't going to be able to REALLY forgive every time they should, but trying is better than nothing.

Nothing's gonna change my mind on that. I've spent years dealing with the "do as I say not as I do" approach to Christianity and it irks me for the people that really do try their hardest to remember what Jesus had to say about how to treat others.

Like the snake said to the man he bit, "You knew what I was when you first picked me up." Don't go to/be employed by a school that espouses certain beliefs with a degree of rigidity and expect to get a pass if you get busted.

I don't think this kind of Christianity is very Christian either, but I'm guessing at some point the school's policies threw someone else under the bus for this or that and this teacher didn't say squat.

There's nothing that says they don't "love" her, but Jesus did say "go and sin no more" not "go and sin more if you feel like it." Pretty much every concept of forgiveness whether personal or religious requires the expression of remorse. I would be more inclined to agree with you if she said not "Please let me keep my job" but "I'm sorry I sinned." She might have said the former but we have no indication that she said the latter. And even then, transgressions have consequences. "I'm sorry I broke the lamp" leads to "I forgive you, but you will need to pay from your allowance until you replace it."

Assuming that the school board/officials don't practice what they preach is your own bias. That's fine, just realize that there's no evidence of that either way at this point. We don't know if they looked at her aghast and yelled "SINNER! SHUN THE SINNER!" or said "I'm very sorry but you know that this was against your contract and we have to let you go."

As to the question of whether or not she felt the need to "reform" - she's married. To the man in question. So if the question is what kind of example she is, I'd argue that she is a good example of how to live a good, not perfect, life. The students are watching and learning - but what is it they are learning?

Again, the school may have been following the letter of the "law" as in contract, but not the spirit. It seems to be another example of a zero tolerance type of rule, which have always struck me as a cop-out. Life is difficult, and messy, and requires discernment. Every situation is different, and should be dealt with individually.

I couldn't resist
 

I agree, I just think we're assuming that it wasn't dealt with individually because we don't like the outcome. We don't know how she reacted, we don't know if there was another option presented. We really just don't know.

The only thing I've seen on the news that perhaps provided new information is that she may have been pressured to resign rather than actually being fired (although she would have been had she not resigned) and I can't confirm that as I only caught the tail end of the report.

The other suggestion I've seen is that the school/principal didn't like having to cover maternity leave and used this as a pretense to fire her rather than cover her leave. That one suggests there was no contract.

If the latter was the case, than the school's a bunch of hypocritical liars and should be sued to the ground. But if they truly acted in good faith (ha) then they're within their rights to do even if we would never do that ourselves.

(And as for reform, she did marry him, but we have no idea whether she's actually "sorry" for her actions or not. If she's not, then just because she happened to be getting married to him anyway, it's not really "reforming." I tend to fall back mentally to the Catholic sacrament of Confession here but i think it's a good standard, you say sorry, you do something to make up for it or show your contrition, that's how you're forgiven. It typically requires both, not one or the other and we have no idea whether she's sorry she did it, sorry she got caught, or unapologetic.)

Well, she's "reformed" in the sense that she is no longer fornicating. :rolleyes:

Or she's learned better than to tell other people ;)

IMHO, they fired her because they just realized her husband was white. BEFORE I GET FLAMED, remember, Liberty University just changed that law about dating outside one's race. She will probably lose, the right to free assembly is stated in the constituion (boy scout lawsuit anyone....)

What does Liberty University have to do with anything? This school is not affiliated with it. And LU can't change any laws. I think the word you're looking for is "policy."

Thanks for bringing a shining ray of stupidity to this thread.

Free assembly =/= employment.

She's been married to her husband for 8 months, odds are they've seen him possibly even at the wedding.

Liberty University is not relevant to the conversation. The school might object to interracial marriage but there's no evidence to indicate that besides your assumptions and bad understanding of the constitution.