Twitter Link
Catholics don't do mulligans. I'm not surprised, but you kinda have to laugh at how the horny dads are getting off (:o) scot free.
Twitter Link
Catholics don't do mulligans. I'm not surprised, but you kinda have to laugh at how the horny dads are getting off (:o) scot free.
$150,000 a month? Good for her.
Find a better school, I'm sure one will take them. Ridiculous.
What a shameful thing to take out on children, instead of protecting them from what is basically bullying from parents and children.
On the other hand, it's amazing how we all know people desire others in their midst as an ordinary part of living, yet also shun those whose desirability is part of their employment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
While I'm not sure I agree with the school's actions, I don't think they're so clearly in the wrong here. When the matter was essentially internal to the school community - other parents and neighbors being unhappy with the mother's work on OnlyFans - the school let the kids stay. It was only after she went public with not just her identity but that of the school (in a major, albeit garbage, newspaper), things take on a different complexion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I am not an expert on Catholic views on posting nude and semi-nude imagery and sexual fantasies on the internet for pay, but I would assume that it runs counter to the teachings of the school in question. Having the school's name so prominently associated with a parent who so clearly is flouting the communal standards is indeed problematic. While it certainly seems unfair to the kids, how else is the school to publicly separate itself from this parent's actions?
Should a madrassah tolerate a parent competing in an international bacon eating contest? What about a yeshiva tolerating a parent openly desecrating the Sabbath? When parents choose to send their children to a school with an explicit value system like this, they are also making a commitment to live - at least in public - within this value system. In fact I'd bet that a lot of schools make this an explicit part of enrollment. By openly tying the school to her modeling, she left them in a difficult position.
If I were running the school, I might have tried to figure out a way to distance the school from her behavior while not expelling the kids, and indeed it seems like they tried it before she went public. But it's not shocking to me that they just wanted to sever their relationship with her entirely, especially once she made an internal spat so public.
This whole thing reminds me of Noah Feldman's mini-controversy he started over a decade ago when he complained that his Orthodox alma mater didn't want to celebrate his intermarriage with a gentile. I mean, seriously, what were you expecting?
I'm not sure the article you linked to is supporting your stance. Where one can expect things to be different in religion based organizations, it goes a lot further than 'not celebrating' when you start erasing people from the real existing world. Do they have a right to think that she should at least have converted? Probably yes. Do they have a right to be in denial of her existence? Not so much.
What's the value of all mitzwot combined compared to a human being?
I could have provided some more context. Bottom line: Feldman has two chief complaints:
1. He and his then-girlfriend were 'nowhere to be found' in the picture in the alumni newsletter.
2. His subsequent reports of lifecycle events (marriage, children) were not mentioned in the alumni newsletter.
It's clear from the link above that the exclusion from the photo was unintentional and untargeted, in contrast to his clear implication that they were intentionally cropped out. As to the second, I think that it's not unreasonable for them to exclude lifecycle events from their newsletter - whose entire purpose is to brag about their alumni - when said lifecycle events are explicitly in contradiction of the school's philosophy, teachings, and mission. It's not like they had an article about their fancy pants Harvard law professor alumnus and omitted any mention of his gentile wife and children; it's not like they disinvited him to alumni events or were openly critical of him. They just chose not to brag about him. I have no problem with that.
I think I was forgetting that Catholic schools are privately funded, which I suppose does change the calculus a bit. Then again, I'd hope the school has some semi-clear policies around when the conduct of a family makes that family incompatible with the school and/or makes efforts to protect children who are being bullied for any reason at all.
This btw is another example of cancel culture. People need to learn to mind their own business.
Pearl clutching from hateful and jealous "religious" people like yourself outdates cancel culture by several decades/centuries dumbass.
Cancel culture isn't 'new' its just a rebranding for mob based ostracization for "sins."Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer