06-12-2014 04:53 PM
136 12345 ...
tools
  1. anon8126715's Avatar
    Oh and I don't knock anyone for following their religion, but I do knock them when they want to subject someone else to their morality and faith. Instead of trying to change the world, you should try changing yourself, IMO. And not just that, but it's not morality if you have to be threatened with punishment. Morality is something you CHOOSE to do, not something that is chosen for you.
    05-31-2014 11:27 PM
  2. palandri's Avatar
    No drinking in public period. Bars. restaurants. Whatever.

    Being a teacher is just like a politician. If the public forms a negative opinion of you, nothing else matters. You have lost your job. Thus why public drinking is technically not allowed for them.
    For someone that affirms their faith in or allegiance to "freedom", you've just given it up. A business or school has no right to control what you do on your own time as long as it reasonable. You go out to dinner and have one glass of wine, there's nothing unreasonable about that.

    So if you follow the rule you listed, "No drinking in public period. Bars. restaurants. Whatever.", You are technically just putting on a front, which is bogus. It reminds me of the politician that professes the evils of homosexuality, but then gets caught with a male escort.
    msndrstood likes this.
    05-31-2014 11:58 PM
  3. toober's Avatar
    Like I said, Christians tend to cherry pick what they want to follow......


    I couldn't be a Christian because I know I couldn't follow all the teachings, and not sure I'd try. What to me makes some christians worse than others is when they try to enforce these believes onto others. If you can't follow your own religious beliefs then you should not try to impose them onto other people.
    It is not a love for money that urges us to be prepared for the future. We are taught to make sure that we take care of ourself first and give from the excess. It's foolish to think that anyone would work every day and only take enough to barely meet their needs with no thought of the future.

    To me, what makes some athiests worse than others is when they try to enforce their beliefs onto others. If a Christian does not believe in birth control or abortion, why should they be forced to pay for it for someone else? While it is not for me to deny someone's use of birth control or their right to an abortion, I should not be forced to pay for it. If you really want people to stay out of your bedroom, stop forcing them to pay for it.
    06-01-2014 12:00 AM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    To me, what makes some athiests worse than others is when they try to enforce their beliefs onto others. If a Christian does not believe in birth control or abortion, why should they be forced to pay for it for someone else? While it is not for me to deny someone's use of birth control or their right to an abortion, I should not be forced to pay for it. If you really want people to stay out of your bedroom, stop forcing them to pay for it.
    The same argument can be used on taxation. Why should a religious entity (some of the largest land owners in the world, btw) get a free pass when it comes to paying into a system that maintains infrastructure that they and their members enjoy?

    As far as being "prepared" for the future, yeah right. It has more to do with worship of material wealth than anything else. But, who am I to judge? I don't pretend to be Christian in any way shape or form, and I'm not really atheist either, but rather agnostic. I think there's a possibility that there's a higher power involved, but I can't imagine that it's some all knowing and all loving entity that some people imagine. Epicurus sums it up for me for the most part, but that's just my opinion based on my views and experiences.

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-01-2014 05:39 AM
  5. NoYankees44's Avatar
    For someone that affirms their faith in or allegiance to "freedom", you've just given it up. A business or school has no right to control what you do on your own time as long as it reasonable. You go out to dinner and have one glass of wine, there's nothing unreasonable about that.

    So if you follow the rule you listed, "No drinking in public period. Bars. restaurants. Whatever.", You are technically just putting on a front, which is bogus. It reminds me of the politician that professes the evils of homosexuality, but then gets caught with a male escort.
    It's not as though you get fired on spot.

    But let's say you post a picture on Facebook with a large Margarita. Then someone spreads the rumor you were drunk at the Mexican restaurant and uses that picture as "evidence". Then someone with their kid in your class complains to the school board that they don't want their kid in your class. Then it spirals from there and you loose your job.

    Thus things like drinking in public are not allowed for teachers. Not to say it does not happen or even myself and my wife do not, but it is a rule that potentially has consequences so we must be mindful. In a society such as ours that everyone quite frankly does not know how to mind their own business, rules like these must be in place for self protection. Especially in jobs where a person is a representative.

    Just like I am not supposed to wear official cloths from my place of work unless I am representing the company. That way if I do do something stupid in my own time, it does not reflect on my company and they do not have to reprimand me for it.



    All that said, if something like this were to happen, I would of course fight it on the grounds of personal time. I would not expect to win however. After the media gets a hold of something, the truth no longer matters. What the majority(or vocal minority) believes is all that matters. You have no rights if society is against you. No matter what some paper or judge in the District of Columbia says.
    06-01-2014 12:07 PM
  6. anon8126715's Avatar
    It's not as though you get fired on spot.

    But let's say you post a picture on Facebook with a large Margarita. Then someone spreads the rumor you were drunk at the Mexican restaurant and uses that picture as "evidence". Then someone with their kid in your class complains to the school board that they don't want their kid in your class. Then it spirals from there and you loose your job.

    Thus things like drinking in public are not allowed for teachers. Not to say it does not happen or even myself and my wife do not, but it is a rule that potentially has consequences so we must be mindful. In a society such as ours that everyone quite frankly does not know how to mind their own business, rules like these must be in place for self protection. Especially in jobs where a person is a representative.

    Just like I am not supposed to wear official cloths from my place of work unless I am representing the company. That way if I do do something stupid in my own time, it does not reflect on my company and they do not have to reprimand me for it.



    All that said, if something like this were to happen, I would of course fight it on the grounds of personal time. I would not expect to win however. After the media gets a hold of something, the truth no longer matters. What the majority(or vocal minority) believes is all that matters. You have no rights if society is against you. No matter what some paper or judge in the District of Columbia says.
    But how does you drinking responsibly in public have anything to do with teaching that child? Now if you get drunk, I can see where that would demonstrate a lack of self control, but to have a couple of drinks, I don't see how that can hinder a teacher's performance unless they're doing it near business hours.
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-01-2014 12:27 PM
  7. NoYankees44's Avatar
    But how does you drinking responsibly in public have anything to do with teaching that child? Now if you get drunk, I can see where that would demonstrate a lack of self control, but to have a couple of drinks, I don't see how that can hinder a teacher's performance unless they're doing it near business hours.
    It doesn't matter whether it has anything to do with teaching children or not. If the parents form a negative opinion of a teacher, nothing else matters. That teacher is out of the job. Rights do not matter when the majority is against you.
    06-01-2014 12:36 PM
  8. anon8126715's Avatar
    It doesn't matter whether it has anything to do with teaching children or not. If the parents form a negative opinion of a teacher, nothing else matters. That teacher is out of the job. Rights do not matter when the majority is against you.
    The only reason it doesn't matter is because we allow it to take place. One of the things that really irritates me about our society in general is how we seem to have stopped trying to be logical and rational when it comes to such matters. Instead of using "in the classroom"/"on the job" performance, we use non-factors to determine if someone's fit to perform their jobs. How often do you see someone get ahead by kissing someone's ****? It's because we live in an age where actual hard work is no longer the deciding factor in how people get ahead. It's how many people you can stab in the back while kissing up to your superiors that seems to determine success nowadays. If we actually started holding people accountable for their jobs, and not worrying about how good their brown nosing skills are, we'd be a much better society for it.

    It's nice when you are a good citizen in the workplace and outside the workplace, but what should matter the most is are you getting the job done?
    06-01-2014 12:57 PM
  9. palandri's Avatar
    It's not as though you get fired on spot....
    So what you're actually saying is, "don't put yourself in a compromising position", that I can understand. I think you're taking it to a level that it doesn't need to be taken to, but that's just my opinion.
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-01-2014 01:53 PM
  10. Scott7217's Avatar
    They could just as easily demand you do not drink alcohol on your own private time. I spent many years in the Catholic Church, I've seen up close and personal the hypocrisy that runs rampant in religious institutions. They took a vow, I didn't. So, no to the contract that infringes on the 1st amendment right to free speech.
    The revised contract does not seem to mention drinking alcohol, but it does list these activities:

    1. Improper use of social media/communication

    2. Flagrant deceit or dishonesty

    3. Publicly living together outside marriage

    4. Sexual activity out of wedlock

    5. Homosexual lifestyle

    6. Abortion

    7. Use of a surrogate mother

    8. In vitro fertilization or artificial insemination

    9. Membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals

    10. Publicly supporting items 3 through 9

    Source: Archdiocese revises teacher contract, specifies unacceptable conduct -- CatholicCulture.org (website link)
    06-02-2014 03:11 PM
  11. msndrstood's Avatar
    The revised contract does not seem to mention drinking alcohol, but it does list these activities:

    1. Improper use of social media/communication

    2. Flagrant deceit or dishonesty

    3. Publicly living together outside marriage

    4. Sexual activity out of wedlock

    5. Homosexual lifestyle

    6. Abortion

    7. Use of a surrogate mother

    8. In vitro fertilization or artificial insemination

    9. Membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals

    10. Publicly supporting items 3 through 9

    Source: Archdiocese revises teacher contract, specifies unacceptable conduct -- CatholicCulture.org (website link)
    And I have a big problem with number 10.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    oz123 likes this.
    06-02-2014 06:41 PM
  12. anon8126715's Avatar
    9. Membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals
    I wonder if supporting groups that help victims of child molestation and abuse would be considered a violation....

    Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
    oz123 and msndrstood like this.
    06-02-2014 07:25 PM
  13. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Like I said, Christians tend to cherry pick what they want to follow......


    I couldn't be a Christian because I know I couldn't follow all the teachings, and not sure I'd try. What to me makes some christians worse than others is when they try to enforce these believes onto others. If you can't follow your own religious beliefs then you should not try to impose them onto other people.
    FYI, you just cherry picked one verse that supports your view.

    My personal issue (and why I tend to avoid lengthy religious discussions) with these types of discussions is that people fail to realize that one verse is not meant to be taken all alone, by itself, out of context of the rest of the passage, or the Bible as a whole. Do you know the difference in the message that was given to the Corinthians (did you even know that was a place?) vs Ephesians vs Philippians? Do you know why certain things were written to certain people's vs others? Do you understand that the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, teachings, and writings? It's not a replacement for them.

    For someone that affirms their faith in or allegiance to "freedom", you've just given it up. A business or school has no right to control what you do on your own time as long as it reasonable. You go out to dinner and have one glass of wine, there's nothing unreasonable about that.

    So if you follow the rule you listed, "No drinking in public period. Bars. restaurants. Whatever.", You are technically just putting on a front, which is bogus. It reminds me of the politician that professes the evils of homosexuality, but then gets caught with a male escort.
    If everything is put out there for both parties before any sort of hiring/employment agreement then I have no problem with it. You have accepted the terms. If you don't like the terms you can walk away and seek employment elsewhere. I'm not sure why that's a problem.
    toober likes this.
    06-02-2014 08:29 PM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    ....If everything is put out there for both parties before any sort of hiring/employment agreement then I have no problem with it. You have accepted the terms. If you don't like the terms you can walk away and seek employment elsewhere. I'm not sure why that's a problem.
    I understand what you're saying, they make it a condition of employment and you can accept it or reject it and that's reasonable. My concern is any employer telling you what you can't do on your own time when it's 100% reasonable, like having a glass of wine at dinner in a restaurant. It's been my experience that once you give a right up, you never get it back. Just a difference in opinion.
    06-02-2014 08:46 PM
  15. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I understand what you're saying, they make it a condition of employment and you can accept it or reject it and that's reasonable. My concern is any employer telling you what you can't do on your own time when it's 100% reasonable, like having a glass of wine at dinner in a restaurant. It's been my experience that once you give a right up, you never get it back. Just a difference in opinion.
    Well, you kind of just said two different things. Having a condition of employment is reasonable, but if one of those conditions doesn't seem reasonable to you than it's not? Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you're saying.

    Either the conditions are reasonable and you agree to them, or they're not and you move on. Assuming the conditions aren't negotiable, that is.
    06-02-2014 08:49 PM
  16. palandri's Avatar
    Well, you kind of just said two different things. Having a condition of employment is reasonable, but if one of those conditions doesn't seem reasonable to you than it's not? Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you're saying.

    Either the conditions are reasonable and you agree to them, or they're not and you move on. Assuming the conditions aren't negotiable, that is.
    I didn't clarify that enough. I meant your statement sounds 100% reasonable on the surface, but I see an erosion of rights dealing with ones free time away from work by agreeing to conditions that aren't unreasonable or outside of norms. Many times you don't have the option of just moving on. It's just my opinion, I know you see it differently.
    06-02-2014 09:07 PM
  17. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I didn't clarify that enough. I meant your statement sounds 100% reasonable on the surface, but I see an erosion of rights dealing with ones free time away from work by agreeing to conditions that aren't unreasonable or outside of norms. Many times you don't have the option of just moving on. It's just my opinion, I know you see it differently.
    OK I see what you're saying and that makes sense.

    As the job market gets more competitive the "demands" get more and more "out there".

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
    palandri likes this.
    06-02-2014 09:11 PM
  18. Scott7217's Avatar
    And I have a big problem with number 10.
    Would it bother you to a point where you would quit your job immediately?

    I'm not sure what people expect if they decide to work at a Catholic school. Wouldn't they be happier working someplace else where they didn't have to jump through all these hoops?
    06-03-2014 12:40 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    FYI, you just cherry picked one verse that supports your view.
    I'm not cherry picking it to follow it, I'm cherry picking it to prove a point. There is a difference. I don't pretend to be a Christian nor to follow its beliefs, but if I did, I think to me it would mean trying to live up to ALL aspects, and not just pick and choose la carte what I want to believe and then push the few parts I believe in onto someone else that very well may be more pious than me in other aspects of the religion.
    06-03-2014 01:56 AM
  20. msndrstood's Avatar
    Would it bother you to a point where you would quit your job immediately?

    I'm not sure what people expect if they decide to work at a Catholic school. Wouldn't they be happier working someplace else where they didn't have to jump through all these hoops?
    I wouldn't apply for a position at a religious school. However, if I were working at one without that clause and then they wanted me to sign a new agreement with that clause, I would indeed find another job. I don't think your life should be run by your job, it's only one aspect of your life.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    Scott7217 likes this.
    06-03-2014 06:59 AM
  21. oz123's Avatar
    But how does you drinking responsibly in public have anything to do with teaching that child? Now if you get drunk, I can see where that would demonstrate a lack of self control, but to have a couple of drinks, I don't see how that can hinder a teacher's performance unless they're doing it near business hours.
    06-03-2014 10:17 AM
  22. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I'm not cherry picking it to follow it, I'm cherry picking it to prove a point. There is a difference. I don't pretend to be a Christian nor to follow its beliefs, but if I did, I think to me it would mean trying to live up to ALL aspects, and not just pick and choose la carte what I want to believe and then push the few parts I believe in onto someone else that very well may be more pious than me in other aspects of the religion.
    Explain the difference please. Sure seems like you just did the same thing that you were being critical of (cherry picking).
    06-03-2014 11:55 AM
  23. anon8126715's Avatar
    Explain the difference please. Sure seems like you just did the same thing that you were being critical of (cherry picking).
    I'm giving an example of a moral teaching that is often dismissed in people that claim to be affiliated with the teachings of Christ. I'm not a Christian and don't select which Christ teachings I wish to follow. It would be like a Doctor not practicing medicine ethically when it suits his/her needs but claiming to abide by the Hippocratic Oath and me (not a Dr.) telling the doctor that he/she re-used unsanitary equipment for an operation. The doctor is cherry picking via their act of reusing equipment to save some money even though they've claimed to taking an oath to practice medicine ethically, where I'm pointing to a part of THEIR OATH that they are choosing not to follow.

    I'm not sure why you think the two are the same. I don't identify myself to be Christian in any way shape or form. I follow my own morality that I'll admit has similar components to Christianity (mostly the golden rule) but differs (I'm not acting moral because I believe there is some place after death that rewards me for "acting" moral, I follow my morality because I believe in it).

    But lets also keep in mind that my morality is just that, MY morality. I don't expect anyone to follow what I believe in (except for maybe when it comes to acts that infringe on my basic human rights), which is one of the reasons I do take issue with groups that are looking to push their moral code via legislation.
    06-03-2014 01:10 PM
  24. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I'm giving an example of a moral teaching that is often dismissed in people that claim to be affiliated with the teachings of Christ. I'm not a Christian and don't select which Christ teachings I wish to follow. It would be like a Doctor not practicing medicine ethically when it suits his/her needs but claiming to abide by the Hippocratic Oath and me (not a Dr.) telling the doctor that he/she re-used unsanitary equipment for an operation. The doctor is cherry picking via their act of reusing equipment to save some money even though they've claimed to taking an oath to practice medicine ethically, where I'm pointing to a part of THEIR OATH that they are choosing not to follow.

    I'm not sure why you think the two are the same. I don't identify myself to be Christian in any way shape or form. I follow my own morality that I'll admit has similar components to Christianity (mostly the golden rule) but differs (I'm not acting moral because I believe there is some place after death that rewards me for "acting" moral, I follow my morality because I believe in it).

    But lets also keep in mind that my morality is just that, MY morality. I don't expect anyone to follow what I believe in (except for maybe when it comes to acts that infringe on my basic human rights), which is one of the reasons I do take issue with groups that are looking to push their moral code via legislation.
    That explanation makes more sense. Thanks.

    Sent from my K00C using Tapatalk
    06-03-2014 01:12 PM
  25. Scott7217's Avatar
    I wouldn't apply for a position at a religious school. However, if I were working at one without that clause and then they wanted me to sign a new agreement with that clause, I would indeed find another job. I don't think your life should be run by your job, it's only one aspect of your life.
    Should the employees fight to remove the clause, or should they simply look for a new job?
    06-03-2014 03:25 PM
136 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Phone Stuck At Bootloop
    By jahanzeb javed in forum Huawei MediaPad X1
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-07-2014, 12:21 PM
  2. Tab 3 separating at bottom
    By scubahope05 in forum Samsung Galaxy Tab 3
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-09-2014, 11:00 AM
  3. AT&T vs. Unlocked
    By detroitmikeb in forum Moto X (2013)
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-14-2014, 06:45 AM
  4. AT&T Galaxy S4: Date missing in notification panel
    By rayge in forum AT&T Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2014, 01:02 AM
  5. AT&T S5 apps safe to turn off/disable/uninstall
    By D-CELL in forum Samsung Galaxy S5
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-07-2014, 11:16 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD