Sunday school teacher fired for being female

[Alonzo]

WATERTOWN, New York (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on August 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." (Watch Church Lady say her dismissal came without warning -- 1:43)

The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met.

In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

[dsanthony]

You haven't taken over the thoughts of every group or individual yet. If their religion teaches that women cannot hold that position in their church, your moral relativism should tell you to butt out. But, you only give the advantages of moral relativism to Islamics who force women to wear burkhas or obtain permission from their husbands to walk outside, or to other tribal groups... White christians are fair game for attack.

[Alonzo]

What have I said in defense of those things? You're arguments about me are based much more on assumptions than anything else. You won't find one comment I've ever made in defense of such actions.

Women have a right to do what they want, and I've known a few women who wanted to wear a burka. A few years ago there was even a case of a woman going to court because she refused to be photographed for her drivers license without her face being covered. Some want to, and they have that right.

There's also the fact that, in this case, this is not established practice, it is a new practice being instituted.

[dsanthony]

Well, you're always taking the side of the islamic terrorists, so I just assumed you support their practices of subjugating women. That would be a good thread topic... I'll start one later.

[Rider]

If memory serves me correctly, the scriptures mentioned in Timothy were part of a list of requirements and prohibitions pertaining to officers of the church. Considering that the matter is internal to a church it should be of no concern to outsiders.

[Alonzo]

Well, you're always taking the side of the islamic terrorists,


You can't even give one example of where I supported them.

If memory serves me correctly, the scriptures mentioned in Timothy were part of a list of requirements and prohibitions pertaining to officers of the church. Considering that the matter is internal to a church it should be of no concern to outsiders.

So you never comment on the behavior of any religious organizations practices pertaining solely to their congregation?

[Labrocca]

She was teaching for 54 years there! One has to think her age might have something to do with her dismissal. She is most likely around 80 years old or more. Maybe they just wanted to replace her and used a biblical excuse so she wouldn't feel bad. Yeah stupid but that's imho a possibility.

[Rider]

If memory serves me correctly, the scriptures mentioned in Timothy were part of a list of requirements and prohibitions pertaining to officers of the church. Considering that the matter is internal to a church it should be of no concern to outsiders.


Zo wrote-
So you never comment on the behavior of any religious organizations practices pertaining solely to their congregation? Well, I suppose if she was being stoned or crucified I might have something to say about it, but really, what business is it of ours?

[dsanthony]

Well, you're always taking the side of the islamic terrorists,


You can't even give one example of where I supported them.

If memory serves me correctly, the scriptures mentioned in Timothy were part of a list of requirements and prohibitions pertaining to officers of the church. Considering that the matter is internal to a church it should be of no concern to outsiders.

So you never comment on the behavior of any religious organizations practices pertaining solely to their congregation?


Yawn..

I don't pretend to be a pure moral relativist who says that white americans cannot judge other cultures. That's your line. I'm just calling you on your hypocrisy.

[Alonzo]

You really need to stop accusing me of things you can't back up, kinda sad that it happens so often.

[Nitrus]

BACK ON TOPIC:

What people (and the Church) fail to realise sometimes.. is that.. although it may say that in the Bible..that was thousands of years ago.. when society was very different..

Society has changed since then.. and people trying to live by how society did thousands of years ago.. will not help the development of society today..

Fair enough, you want to live by the Bible.. but people need to do it loosely..

[dsanthony]

That's a valid interpretation, though not an orthodox or strict one. If you believe the bible is the word of god, then it is permissible to ban women from positions of authority in the church. As Catholics do by banning women from being priests. Either way, it's an internal battle for each religious denomination.

[Rider]

Nitrus wrote- What people (and the Church) fail to realise sometimes.. is that.. although it may say that in the Bible..that was thousands of years ago.. when society was very different..

Society has changed since then.. and people trying to live by how society did thousands of years ago.. will not help the development of society today..

Fair enough, you want to live by the Bible.. but people need to do it loosely..
Sorry, but it's not your call.

[Nitrus]

Nitrus wrote- What people (and the Church) fail to realise sometimes.. is that.. although it may say that in the Bible..that was thousands of years ago.. when society was very different..

Society has changed since then.. and people trying to live by how society did thousands of years ago.. will not help the development of society today..

Fair enough, you want to live by the Bible.. but people need to do it loosely..
Sorry, but it's not your call.


If you have nothing relevant or valid to add.. then dont post.. what you posted was obvious.. what I posted was an opinion.. not a pledge to the governments and churches of the world..

[Rider]

On the contrary, my comment was both relevant and valid.Â*Â*It was relevant because it refered to your comments. It was my opinion and it was, by any definition as valid as your opinion, no?

My point was that some religious denominations believe that scripture is what is says. If the scriptures can be modified to suit our "realities", or more accurately our preferences then at some point in time they will cease to reflect the original intent. I happen to think that's a valid point. In any case, it's not up to me or you to decide how their internal affairs are handled.
Furthermore, people are free to live the lives they choose as long as they live within the law and do not infringe on the rights of others. I have often thought that mennonites and the amish are most likely guilty of child abuse, as they severely limit their children's horizons and futures. But, they break no laws and don't bother others, so we have no right to force them to alter their lifestyles to suit more modern times.

[BoogyMan]

Fair enough, you want to live by the Bible.. but people need to do it loosely..


I would LOVE to have you show me book, chapter, and verse for this one Nitrus.

[Nitrus]

The Bible doesnt incorporate change in society.. therefore people shouldnt live by it to the letter.. expecially in the case of womens roles in society..

If Governments can accept the change in their roles (their right to vote etc) then why cant the bliddy religion...?

[BoogyMan]

The Bible doesnt incorporate change in society.. therefore people shouldnt live by it to the letter.. expecially in the case of womens roles in society..

If Governments can accept the change in their roles (their right to vote etc) then why cant the bliddy religion...?


Umm. I believe the request was for book, chapter, and verse, not equivocation of religion and responsibility towards God with secular life. The bible isn't intended the deal with change, it is intended to deliver God's will for man.

[Nitrus]

I do NOT have to fulfill YOUR requests.. actually...

[Rider]

Nitrus wrote- The Bible doesnt incorporate change in society.. therefore people shouldnt live by it to the letter.. expecially in the case of womens roles in society..

If Governments can accept the change in their roles (their right to vote etc) then why cant the bliddy religion...?
Governments and religions are completely different entities, right down to their very core.
Governments are by nature structures designed and assembled by mankind for mankind in one form or another.
Religions are by nature structures handed down to mankind by a being or force separate and infinitely superior to mankind. This very principle provides a "permanence" not provided by or even alluded to by governments. The intent is to provide core values and guidelines for mankind that transcend generational changes.

[BoogyMan]

I do NOT have to fulfill YOUR requests.. actually...

Ahhhh, well. Thanks for the input. You are all about debate and proving those points.

[Alonzo]

The point is we need to view religion sensibly. Scriptural absolutism leaves little more than fundamentalism, which is rarely a good thing. Even the bible itself does not argue that it is the only source of truth.

[Rider]

Zo wrote- The point is we need to view religion sensibly. Scriptural absolutism leaves little more than fundamentalism, which is rarely a good thing. Even the bible itself does not argue that it is the only source of truth.
Perfectly reasonable and you, as well as any church are free to adhere to that. However, the point is that you don't have the right to force anyone else to accept your reasoning.

[Alonzo]

Perfectly reasonable and you, as well as any church are free to adhere to that. However, the point is that you don't have the right to force anyone else to accept your reasoning.



Which is it, I don't have the right to force someone to do what I say, or I don't have the right to state my opposition to it? I haven't done the former, I've done the latter, and you've denounced both.

[Rider]

No Zo, you may state your opinion however you wish. I'm just pointing out that no one has to accept it.