From today's New York Post

November 22, 2005 -- A pregnant and unmarried former pre-kindergarten teacher yesterday accused the Diocese of Brooklyn and the Queens elementary school where she worked of wrongfully firing her for having sex out of wedlock and choosing to keep her baby.

Michelle McCusker, 26, who is 18 weeks pregnant, was fired last month from St. Rose of Lima School in Rockaway Beach for violating "the tenets of Catholic morality," according to her termination letter signed by the principal.

"When a situation becomes evident that a teacher's life can not [sic] witness what the Catholic Church teaches, then termination of contract must occur," Principal Theresa Andersen wrote.

McCusker and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission yesterday charging that the diocese and school broke a 27-year-old federal law banning pregnancy discrimination.

"I don't understand how a religion that prides itself on being forgiving and on valuing life could terminate me because I'm pregnant and am choosing to have this baby," a sobbing McCusker said at a press conference at the NYCLU offices.

The charge comes as the Brooklyn Diocese is still recovering from accusations that its former bishop, Thomas Daily, quietly moved priests accused of sexually abusing children from parish to parish instead of banishing them.

McCusker signed a one-year contract for about $30,000 with the school in September and agreed to the terms of a personnel handbook "to teach and act according to the precepts and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church," which forbid premarital sex.

But her lawyers argue that the school and church held McCusker to its policy of prohibiting sex outside marriage only after she became pregnant, thereby enforcing the policy in a way that disproportionately affects women and is illegal.

"The school used her pregnancy as a marker," said NYCLU lawyer Cassandra Stubbs. "How do they determine if male employees engage in premarital sex?"

The school and its parish church referred press inquiries to the diocese. Diocese spokesman Frank DeRosa said in a statement, "This is a difficult situation for every person involved, but the school had no choice but to follow the principles contained in the teachers personnel handbook."

McCusker said that like many women whose pregnancies are in the first trimester, she said nothing of her condition to her principal when she was hired. She told the principal last month, as her pregnancy approached three months.

"I didn't think they could fire me," said McCusker, who informed the principal she was not planning to marry the father of her baby. "I held the Catholic religion to a higher standard."

She said she's now subbing at public schools to make ends meet.

david.andreatta@nypost.com
---------------

This story is quite similar to the recent one in which a girl was expelled from a religious school because her parents were lesbians.

Sad as it may be, in my opinion since this is a private school, they have the right to fire this woman.

However the story does raise one interesting issue:

How does the school determine whether or not their male teachers are having sex out of wedlock?

If their rules are being applied in a discriminatory manner, that makes it even more morally wrong that this woman was fired, although I would still maintain that the school is within their rights.

How does the school determine whether the female teachers are having sex out of wedlock? This woman was just unlucky, she chose to get pregnant. Otherwise who is to find out, irrespective of their genders?
Is it discriminatory? Yes and no. Yes, because males will most likely never get caught. No, because in every "crime", only those who get caught are punished. If you are smart enough to escape it, no one can punish you. Nothing special in this case. The girl could have been slightly smarter though.

If it is the teachings of Catholicism that the school is truly worried about, then the woman should be applauded for deciding to have the baby. She could have had sex, realized she was pregnant, then quietly decided on an abortion before anyone else realized that she was pregnant. This would be decidedly against Catholic teachings. Her decision to have the baby would be more in line with what the Church teaches, so why are they so upset?

Because unfortunately they give more importance to the negative example an unmarried pregnant teacher would be to her students than to the fundamental commandment of the whole Christian doctrine and the sum of all the virtues, i.e. charity, as Jesus himself taught.
Nothing new under the sun....

Unless she was a prostitute, eh, plaw.

The woman in question today pointed out that if she had an abortion but the school didn't find out, she would have probably kept her job.

How f*cked is this situation?

Besides, why are pricks follow a religion revolving around a non-prick?

This is a classic "separation clause" issue. This is a matter of a church teaching trumping the civil law. The courts are not going to get involved in the firing of a teacher on religious grounds no matter what the equities are.

It is interesting though because once again we see what a sexist institution the Catholic Church is. They do not allow women into the priesthood, and when their male priests diddle little boys, they rewward them by coddling the pedophiles and hiding their crimes.

What the hell does that mean?


DS

Don't act so dumb with me, for you are still a suspect!

Think about it.....who is this non-prick?

"Blessed are the peacemakers"

"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks."

"Yes I am with you always, until the very end of time"

I have no idea. :p

What the hell does that mean? [/b][/quote]I was wondering about that myself.

And after Ronnie's reply, I'm still wondering.

Ronnie, easy big fella....

Ronnie, are you mocking the Catholic religion? Are you making fun of Jesus?


DS

I think he is/

Oh For Crying it OUT LOUD! Ronnie is basically saying that Jesus was a good guy with fantastic ideas that had been manipulated and "followed" (loosely) by a bunch of idiots.

Jeez.................................................

I think everyone should be made fun of. Why is Jezus so special that he shouldn't be made fun of?

The italicized things should make it more clear than it already was.

I agree with you, Plaw. It's a private school, and she agreed to follow their rules. If she wanted to sleep around and not be bound by a document which outlines strict morals, then she should have looked for a job elsewhere when she saw the handbook, IMO. :rolleyes:

I was laughing at his joke, but now I'm laughing at you. So it's not okay for Ronnie to mock an aspect of the Catholic religion, but it's okay for someone to start spreading hate about Islam? Where were you when DJ posted that big article degrading it a few weeks ago? Don't play one side. BTW, I'm Catholic.

And that'd be great if you could actually post your own response to this without actually running to DC and trying to tag team. Thanks!

Do you believe in God?

I thought you became an atheist, Pat.

Do you believe in God? [/b][/quote]Not really. I'm agnostic about it.

DV--You can't just become something. That's bullshit when people say they're a born again Christian and whatnot. I was born Catholic and there's nothing I can do that can change that.

Why is it B.S. if one says he's a born-again believer? They're not saying they're perfect (which explains the "Why do pricks follow a non-prick," btw). For folks who aren't born again to lambast those of us who are is like me giving space travel advice to Neil Armstrong. I don't get it, but then I shouldn't be surprised at your sentiments because even the Leader of the Christians warned about such an attitude being prevalent...particularly in the last days (thank God).

Pat, I didn't even make a post in this topic. So I would appreciate it if you would keep me out of your comments when I haven't even commented or posted in this thread. There was absolutely NO REASON whatsoever for you to bring my name up in your response to Don Smitty.

Thank you.


Don Cardi

Yes you can. Just unsubscribe yourself.

There is an expression in the Catholic faith: "Giving good witness." An unmarried, pregnant teacher is not giving good witness. Now before all the non-believer and Catholic bashers respond with..."what about the guy, what about the pedophile priests, what about...." yeah, what about them. They're are sinners, and God can forgive them. That doesn't change the fact that any Catholic, Catholic institution or priest, bishop, whoever shouldn't keep trying to give good witness. Sure there is a lot of hypocrisy by people in the Catholic faith, but that doesn't mean you throw up your hands and say, what the heck, if Father O'Brien can diddle the altar boys then why can't I?

THANK YOU E. Brown! Really for a hippie :p , you actually knew Biblical quotations by Mr. J.C. himself, yet many others totally missed it.

Hell, strange how plawrence of all people didn't notice the "Blessed are the Peacemakers" quotation. I mean, I figured that was the obvious one, but then again, one can never assume.

Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, Isa, the Son of God, The Messiah(or "King") of the Isrealities....many names for the same mysterious person who's story of mythological miraculous birth to his self-journey to his ultimate message of love and compassion, and ultimately to his martyr death by the Romans...I myself was never fond of actually believing or taking such stories of multiplying bread and fish or resurrecting the dead or of course coming back himself as a zombie. However, the philosiphy and message is absolutely humanistic, and most importantly, noble.

It is unfortunate how all these assholes that run around waving the Bible, being absolutely mean and angry, of being mighty and moral....from Pat Robertson telling that town that voted out Intelligent Design out of its curriculum that they have "deserted" God, to many religious groups, loudly or violently, wanting to suppress the natural American Constitutional Civil Rights of homosexuals, to now this story.

Legally, I agree with others that the Courts will side with the school on this matter.

However, morally what the school did was wrong. What Christians don't remember that story of Jesus stopping that mob wanting to stone a woman to death because she committed adultery, and took a rock from someone and saying: "Who will cast the first stone upon themselves?"(NOTE: Ya I got the quote wrong, but the message still is conveyed).

As for someone that thought I was making fun of the Catholic Church, why? Fact is, the Church as it is today in terms of rituals and traditions somewhat date back to the Medievil Age, where society in Europe was defined in every facet of life in that the Classes or "Estates"(Peasants/Clergy/Nobles), and for everyone to remember that everyday in church.

Absolutely the Church itself helped child molestors among the "flock" in such coped-out excuses like of "compassion" or whatever, and not to mention all those Nazi war criminals that many parishes in Europe apparently helped and abided in keeping them from the avenging Allies and their War Crimes trials.

What annoys me about this story of how many serious Christians would protest and willingly at times commit violence to stop abortions("Murdering God's children!") yet seem to not show such savior-notions once that damn kid pops out of the womb. Why no love for the woman? She once was a fetus too you know.

From my time in this world, perhaps the reason for why such violent evil people abuse and bastardize text of peace and love is how for many people that are aggressive in wanting action, the religion and the people that prop up their "interpretations" of the text become such of excuse to everyone, truely a "cover". Consider the clerics in the Middle East who tell suicide bombers that innocent, and even muslim, civilians that die because of their acts are excused by Allah.....which of course is complete garbage according to the text itself, but clerics preach it, and it becomes the truth for many.

Funny enough, the Holy Bible itself for Christians, which many do use as their defense against gays for their "sinful lifestyle", actually in a technical manner only forbid "Men" per "laying in bed with each other"...so technically, God is cool with lesbians. Go read the text and think about it.

Jesus' message was one of love and compassion, and I do find that His message is often at odds with the Catholic Church. I have found that the Church is often at odds with Christianity. It has turned into a huge bureaucracy often more interested in making money than in ministering to its flock.

or...non practicing Catholics are often at odds with the message of Jesus and other Christian religions are at odds with the Catholic Church since they are not a sacramental religion as is the Catholic religion. And the Catholic Church has to be beaurocratic to administer the huge amounts of money it gives to charity and to organize and minister to it's world-wide flock.

Part of the original discussion centres on the rights of an employer and an employee. I am presuming this woman was employed by the school which is a privately run "business". This highlights the difference in employment law in the US and over here. Having read the details of the case this woman would have a very strong case for unfair dismissal if it had taken place in the UK/Ireland. Here the relationship between an employer and an employee is framed by two things, i) Employment & Discrimination Law and ii) the terms and conditions of employment (usually referred to as "the contract"). The first is set in stone, the second is an agreement between the employer and employee as to the rules of their individual employment. However you cannot force an employee in their contract to waive a statutory right. So for example if an employer put in the contract..."In the event of pregnancy the employee agrees to forego Maternity Pay"...even if the employee signs this it is not enforceable since under law Maternity Pay is a statutory right for any employed woman.

I was laughing at his joke, but now I'm laughing at you. So it's not okay for Ronnie to mock an aspect of the Catholic religion, but it's okay for someone to start spreading hate about Islam? Where were you when DJ posted that big article degrading it a few weeks ago? Don't play one side. BTW, I'm Catholic.

And that'd be great if you could actually post your own response to this without actually running to DC and trying to tag team. Thanks! [/b][/quote]I don't mock the muslim religion. I do hate the people who say that they are muslim and then blow themselves up and kill people. I don't like people making fun of other peoples religion and that's what a few of you are doing here. I dont need DC or anyone else to team up against you. Maybe you need to run to other members here for help but I dont.


DS

Ronnie, I don't see how you can say His message was "humanistic." If evolution, the big bang, etc., is true, then we should have no sense of morals, right & wrong, law, etc. Jesus' message transcends mankind. Read Isaiah 40 sometime if you think God's thinking is somehow the same as ours.

I agree with you about the loose cannons who run about under the banner of Christ spewing hate and venom. What you have to remember is that every faith, every political faction...heck, everyTHING has within it different sects, philosophies, etc. You cannot anymore lump ALL believers in the same arrogant, hateful categorey with Robertson and the like any more than I could say all Asians are like Chairman Mao. And the fact is, there have been just as many (probably MORE) atrocious acts done in the name of other non-religious, non-Christian, humanistic institutions as there have in the name of Christ. In other words, there are always nuts running around out there in all kinds of sizes and stripes.

I believe people make the Bible a lot more complicated to interpret than it is. If you read it as you would any other ordinary book (of course, recognizing that it isn't just an ordinary book), it makes perfect sense. In other words, taking into account historical context, cultural context, immediate context, figures of speech, symbolic language, etc. It doesn't set out to PROVE the existence of God, the Virgin Birth, etc. It just assumes them right off the bat. That's where the "faith factor" comes in. Hold whatever opinion of that you want, as is your right. But it's also my right to believe it, and although we can disagree about it, there's no reason I should be viewed as some idiot nut case who bombs abortion clinics. Fair enough?

Oddly, Jesus didn't legislate morality. He didn't run around Jerusalem holding picket signs and banging people over the head. He sought to change hearts. He knew that only through changed hearts does all the other follow. Unfortunately, many of His followers miss that. I'm not making excuses for them, because there IS no excuse for such behavior. But I would submit that you should remember just who it is that God is in the business of saving: sinners. There are a few requirements for one to become born again, according to Christ and the Bible: (1) You have to be a sinner; (2) you have to be an enemy of God (Romans 5); and (3) you have to not even be seeking God (Romans 3). Hey, when I got to the point in my life that I realized I met all the qualifications, I became born again, "not guilty" in the sight of God because of Christ's sacrifice. Am I still a sinner? Of course. But I'm with less excuse now to be such than I ever was before, and so are all these morons who run around with their message of hate.

BTW, the Bible does prohibit homosexuality in any gender. Read Leviticus if you have doubts. (The word used for "man" in Hebrew can be translated "mankind" as well. Check out Genesis where when God created man, "male and female, He created them.") Again, though, it also prohibits gossip, lying, etc., and I'd bet my bottom dollar that a lot of these Bible-bangers have done one or more of such sins. Granted, there ARE "degrees" of sin, but bottom line, it's ALL unrighteousness and sin in His eyes. And again, a lot of these folks (whether deliberately or not) conveniently forget that.

God doesn't need me to defend Him or the Bible, and I'm really not trying to. But I just think it's unfair to paint a portrait of Christians without taking into account that not all believers are like that. That's all.