"You can't judge people on their lifestyle"

[Vort]

http://www.aol.com/article/2015/01/12/mother-henrico-baptist-church-will-fire-me-if-i-dont-get-marri/21128308/?icid=maing-grid7|aol20-ns|dl11|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D597229?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

 

Whatever you think on this topic -- and it seems obvious to me that if you work for a church, you have to abide by that church's standards, including things like not fornicating -- the quoted statement stands out.

 

Can you judge people at all? Perhaps that depends on what you mean by "judge". Our society is built on the idea that you can, and should, judge people, where "judge" means "assess fitness for a particular function". This is not regarding the government, of course, but of people in general.

 

On what should you judge them? There are a few things that, as a rule, you shouldn't judge people on, with relatively few and fairly obvious exceptions:

• Skin color
• Height
• Weight

There are some other things that might be used in certain circumstances to judge people:

• Sex
• Religion
• Political affiliation

Then there are some things that seem the pretty obvious candidates for what we use when judging other people:

• Social beliefs
• Educational attainments
• Skills and abilities
• Actions
• Lifestyle choices

So here is a woman employed by a church, who is stating that her "lifestyle choice" ought not to be used -- BY THE CHURCH -- to determine her fitness for a position in CARING FOR OTHER CHURCH-GOERS' CHILDREN.

 

You gotta wonder.

[Guest MormonGator]

I love when people say "You shouldn't make judgements". That in itself is a judgement, but anyway. 

 

Try waking up in the morning and not making judgements. It's impossible. Get over it. 

 

That said, you don't have to listen to people who make judgements, but they every right to do so. 

 

It's like people who believe in moral relativism, the classic self defeating and illogical belief system. 

Edited January 12, 2015 by MormonGator

[Claire]

"Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum"

 

Augustine's quote there is better known by its somewhat paraphrased English equivalent, "love the sinner but hate the sin." There's a sense in which we can judge people, and a sense in which we cannot. The church in the story is free to judge the woman's actions as sinful, and in fact has an obligation to protect its members from the perceived sin. It is important, however, to remain charitable in casting such judgments.

 

We absolutely cannot cast judgments upon another person's soul, as that particular duty is God's alone. All we can do when confronted with sinners is instruct them as best we know how and pray for them with as much charity as possible. 

[PolarVortex]

Eeeek.  I've had long fights with liberal friends over this.  One was a passenger in a car I was driving, and he demanded I stop the car and let him out because he thought I was so totally wrong about this.  (We were driving along very high ocean cliffs on a highway that had no shoulder, so I really encouraged him to wait until I could get him to a safer drop-off point.)

 

When it comes to discrimination in the workplace, I think employers should be allowed to discriminate only on the basis of the worker's ability to do the job, with a few rare exceptions such as not allowing registered sex offenders to work with children.  Everything else is off the table.  If Miss Kellam keeps her chosen lifestyle private, and no criminal activity is going on (like bigamy), and Miss Kellam competently supports and teaches whatever the church hired her to support and teach, I don't think the church should have grounds for firing her. 

 

Besides, it cuts both ways.  Remember the CEO of Mozilla?  Suppose my employer has workplace policies that prohibit any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation.  If my employer finds out that I gave money to some ballot initiative against same-sex marriage, should my employer have the right to fire me?

[Jane_Doe]

Referring specifically to this case:

 

It IS in her employee handbook that pregnant people should be married.  If this was specifically in her contract, I would say that this is a shut case, because she was violating the terms of her contract. 

 

However, I’m getting the impression that she was hired with her employers knowing she was pregnant and unmarried.  In which case the employers aren’t playing by their own rulebook and things get much messier.  

[Claire]

I see where you're coming from Polar, though I'm inclined to say that Miss Kellam's lifestyle does have some bearing on her ability to do her job.

 

I think most people would agree that your kids are more likely to do what you tell them to do if you do it as well. In other words, the "do as I say and not as I do" approach tends not to work. The thing is, as a representative of the church, Miss Kellam is basically doing that. I'm sure her church has a teaching against having kids outside of wedlock, so when the kids hear that teaching, they're likely to think "but Miss Kellam has kids and isn't married!"

 

Again, this isn't a condemnation of Miss Kellam as a person. What I am saying is that, prudentially, I could see why the church wouldn't want one of its agents to be living in a way that contradicts its teachings, as that would tend to undermine the importance of those teachings.

 

Anyway, just that's just my two cents worth :)

 

-Claire

[Just_A_Guy]

Besides, it cuts both ways.  Remember the CEO of Mozilla?  Suppose my employer has workplace policies that prohibit any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation.  If my employer finds out that I gave money to some ballot initiative against same-sex marriage, should my employer have the right to fire me?

 

Perhaps not; but what if you're out there deliberately writing bugs in the code--or telling people that they shouldn't be using Firefox at all?

 

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that raising up a generation of children who believe that fornication is normal and morally acceptable, is to some degree in contravention of the Baptist educational system's raison d'etre.

 

That said:  I agree with JaneDoe.  Management seems to have known what they were getting when they hired her; and initially chose to accept assurances that--sooner or later--she was going to get married.  Having apparently concluded that a little fornication in the short run wasn't such a big deal; their current position about the importance of their staff living lives of moral rectitude becomes more tenuous.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

Referring specifically to this case:

 

It IS in her employee handbook that pregnant people should be married.  If this was specifically in her contract, I would say that this is a shut case, because she was violating the terms of her contract. 

 

However, I’m getting the impression that she was hired with her employers knowing she was pregnant and unmarried.  In which case the employers aren’t playing by their own rulebook and things get much messier.  

 

Pregnant and unmarried does not imply present fornication, only past (or forcible rape, or a recent divorce). Perhaps they thought they were doing a favor to a poor unmarried mother-to-be without realizing she was currently in a nonmarried cohabitation relationship.

 

In any case, my cause for marvel was not alley-cat morality or the legality of firing someone for fornication, but the idea that someone would say, with a straight face, "You can't judge people on their lifestyle."

[Guest MormonGator]

Pregnant and unmarried does not imply present fornication, only past (or forcible rape, or a recent divorce). Perhaps they thought they were doing a favor to a poor unmarried mother-to-be without realizing she was currently in a nonmarried cohabitation relationship.

 

 

Vort, those are brilliant points. 

 

I remember once someone remarking that a pregnant woman was "not wearing a wedding ring". I replied, "This is a problem?" The other person said, "yes, she's probably a (rhymes with more)" 

I bit my tongue. I wanted to scream at the person I was with with.

 

The ladies husband had died in a car accident while the woman was already pregnant. 

 

We should never, ever assume. 

Edited January 12, 2015 by MormonGator

[Bini]

I love when people say "You shouldn't make judgements". That in itself is a judgement, but anyway. 

 

Try waking up in the morning and not making judgements. It's impossible. Get over it. 

 

I'm one of those people. but I'll try to explain my thought process.

 

When I say to my daughter, "We shouldn't make judgments," I am referring to judging others when we aren't walking in their shoes. I'm not implying that we do not make decisions. By all means, make decisions, make the best decisions you are able.

[prisonchaplain]

It's possible that the employer erred on the side of grace, and changed tune when the employee showed no progress towards bringing her life in line with the school's values.  Perhaps Ms. Can't-judge-me intended on creating this dilemma by insinuating-but-not-promising outright that she would soon be getting married.  And now, knowing the liberal culture's power, has played her trump card.

 

Then again, maybe employer was desperate for a child care worker, and hired the girl, despite her lifestyle.  Then, when parents or church members caught wind of it, a decision to backtrack was made, and a hasty ultimatum was given.

 

We do not have enough information.  This will likely be decided by a judge, or through a mutually unsatisfactory compromise.

[2ndRateMind]

Well, as you might expect, I have a contrariwise view on this.

 

"Judge not, lest ye be judged!"

 

Not one of Jesus' greatest sayings, though I get where He is coming from.

 

Thing is, we will be judged. And we will be judged according to our own judgments. If we accept the immoral, that is most likely because we are immoral. But we need to be careful about what is, and is not, immoral. Human sexuality, with all it's complexity, is a messy business. I'm content to leave it that way, and let it express itself as it will, provided it does no harm, and refrain from judgment in that sphere, when no harm is done.

 

But wealth inequality? That is truly immoral. People die because of it. If we all judged the rich as the rich deserve to be judged - selfish, greedy, avaricious and sinful, that might go a long way towards ensuring everybody gets enough to eat, in the world.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited January 15, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

If we judged the rich as the rich deserve to be judged - selfish, greedy, avaricious and sinful

 

Interesting. From where do you claim authority to pass such a judgment on the most productive members of society?

[2ndRateMind]

I need no authority. I just speak as it is, and I find the wealthy no more productive than anyone else, when one allows for the multiplier factor of their wealth. Or can you find contrary evidence?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Vort]

 

I need no authority. I just speak as it is

 

Ah. Your opinion defines truth. Got it.

 

I find the wealthy no more productive than anyone else, when one allows for the multiplier factor of their wealth. Or can you find contrary evidence?

 

How many jobs have the bottom 10% of the population created for society as compared to, for example, Bill Gates?

[Guest MormonGator]

I think a lot of the " I hate the rich" is code for "I am jealous I don't have that but don't know how to express it, so I'll just say I hate the rich" 

 

I also have a personal rule. I don't take anyone seriously who talks about "greed" unless they have personally turned down a pay raise from their boss. 

 

I also have another rule. Never feel sorry for anyone making millions of dollars a year. They can cry into their checkbooks. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

 

Ah. Your opinion defines truth. Got it.

 

 

I'm pleased we see eye to eye on that one.

 

 

 

 

 

How many jobs have the bottom 10% of the population created for society as compared to, for example, Bill Gates?

 

 

 

If you start from an unfair premise, anything you contend may be unfair. Better to ask; how many jobs would the bottom 10% have created if they were not constrained by their poverty?

 

Best, 2RM.

Edited January 15, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

I think a lot of the " I hate the rich" is code for "I am jealous I don't have that but don't know how to express it, so I'll just say I hate the rich" 

 

I also have a personal rule. I don't take anyone seriously who talks about "greed" unless they have personally turned down a pay raise from their boss. 

 

I also have another rule. Never feel sorry for anyone making millions of dollars a year. They can cry into their checkbooks. 

 

 

Believe me, I am not jealous of the rich. It seems to me a tremendous burden of responsibility to carry - a burden they mostly seem unaware of, mainly because society at large is not making them aware of it.

 

Nevertheless, their moral responsibility is clear. No one gets two Lambourghinis until everyone has enough to eat, clean water to drink, sanitation, shelter, primary education and healthcare. 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Guest MormonGator]

Believe me, I am not jealous of the rich. It seems to me a tremendous burden of responsibility to carry - a burden they mostly seem unaware of, mainly because society at large is not making them aware of it.

 

Nevertheless, their moral responsibility is clear. No one gets two Lambourghinis until everyone has enough to eat, clean water to drink, sanitation, shelter, primary education and healthcare. 

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Great! 

 

Be careful though. Telling people what is fair and good for them to do without proper authority is the first step to megalomania. 

 

Actually, let me clarify. You have every right to lecture them, preach to them and tell anyone how awful they are. 

 

They just don't have to listen. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by MormonGator

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

They just don't have to listen. 

 

Agreed.

 

Best, 2RM

[Crypto]

 

 

Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)

7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

Maybe it would be wise to

 

 

 24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

so

 

 

• Skin color
• Height
• Weight

Would all be a judgement on appearance. Which would be unrighteous.

I would add to this list

• Wealth

Judging someone on wealth and not what this person is doing with it would be judgement of the appearance of wealth. If we are not to judge on the appearance this would be unrighteous judgement. (which equally applies to the poor and the wealthy)

 

And with all things as some good humble advise

 

 

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

Many of the other factors Vort has listed above aren't about appearance, and would not be explicitly condemned. 

Edited January 15, 2015 by Crypto

[Vort]

If you start from an unfair premise, anything you contend may be unfair. Better to ask; how many jobs would the bottom 10% have created if they were not constrained by their poverty?

 

Sorry, 2RM, but your transparent dodge won't work. You asked a question and I answered it. Quit trying to weasel out. It isn't honest.

 

I need no authority. I just speak as it is, and I find the wealthy no more productive than anyone else, when one allows for the multiplier factor of their wealth. Or can you find contrary evidence?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Evidence found.

[2ndRateMind]

I don't follow.

 

Bill Gates; unconstrained by poverty, creates a lot of jobs.

Bottom 10% of the world, constrained by poverty ($1 per day typical income) creates fewer jobs per person.

 

Unsurprising finding, to me, which suggests that constraint by poverty is the deciding factor.

 

So, the ethical question arising is; do we allow more income to Bill Gates, in the hope that he may create even more jobs, or more income to those struck by poverty, in order that they might have decent livelihoods, and even create some jobs of their own?

 

Best, 2RM.

Edited January 15, 2015 by 2ndRateMind

[Just_A_Guy]

I think we need to make a distinction as to which "poor" we're talking about.

 

Between 50-70% of the American Forbes 400 are self-made.  Only about 40% of them came from homes with values of $1 million or more.  In the US, and much of the Westernized world, people can and do regularly pull themselves out of poverty (and, yes, create jobs) by adhering to some relatively basic principles.  That's not necessarily the case in many third world countries where war, corruption, famine, or exploitation by neighbors really does make socioeconomic mobility--even across generations--practically impossible.

 

Also:  Are you aware that 70% of Americans who unexpectedly come into large sums of money, are broke within seven years?  (Source)  At least within the US--and possibly in much of the western world--you can't fix poverty without fixing poverty culture.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Just_A_Guy