Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NCBuy)   Stripper mom who got kid expelled from Christian school to become wacky morning shock-jock.   ( divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

6867 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2002 at 8:28 AM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

159 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-05-23 10:41:56 AM  

The school is dictating to the dancer to behave in accordance with the church's standards.

Jerkstore is dictating to the school to behave in accordance with the church's standards.

Bevets is dictating to Jerkstore to behave in accordance with Bevets' standards.

Rubble is dictating to Bevets to behave in accordance with Bevets' standards.

You would not change you statements if you found out they were wrong, because first you would have to admit to yourself that you were wrong, which you wouldn't. Even if you could admit to yourself that you were wrong, you would still be incapable of aadmitting it to anyone else.
2002-05-23 10:43:17 AM  
My personal opinion? The church is using slimy tacitcs. They're bad. The stripper i'm not too sure about. I don't trust anyone who willingly brings the rabid hounds of the press down on themselves without a really damn good reason. That and the fact that she's becoming a "shock jock". It's probably just a bad decision though. I'd expect a job as a stripper to last longer than one of those cockmongrels, though it might pay less.
2002-05-23 10:50:17 AM  

Oh yeah, and he never told the school to MYOB, he told it to practice what it preaches. The school was the hypocrit. Jerkstore is calling them on it. You're telling Jerkstore to ignore it. If the school doesn't like being told to practice what it preaches, then it should quit preaching. You're so quick to call someone a hypocrit, when it's you.
2002-05-23 10:50:22 AM  
OPPORTUNIST tag needed.
2002-05-23 10:50:49 AM  
Let me try that again, got a bit sidetracked there and didn't come out with the point i wanted to make.

The victim here is the little girl. I see nothing indicating she did anything wrong.

The bad guy here is the church. They're punishing a child for something someone else did. Is it legal? Possibly (as jerkstore stated, we haven't seen the contract, thus we don't know exactly how legit it is). However, is this a tactic Christ himself would use? Christ seemed to be rather kind to children.

The stripper here is either a) a good mother and guardian of justice or b) an opportunist looking to use this incident to further herself. I honestly can't tell and thus am not going to argue this one way or the other. I'll just let all you who have formed infallible opinions on it duke it out :) She either called the press to protect her daugher's (the real victim) rights, and to set a precedent for others who may be in her daughter's shoes. It's also possible she did this simply to genereate publicity on herself.

As I'm not psychic, I can't tell her motivations. Therefore it's easier just to leave the goodness/badness of the stripper out of the question altogether and simply evaluate the situation at hand:

Is the church a flaming ball of scum for expelling a student for no clear fault of th student?

I'm going out on a limb here and saying "Yes."
2002-05-23 11:01:05 AM  
Meek and Rubble:

You guys can watch my back any time. Thanks for the backup.
2002-05-23 11:02:22 AM  
Bevets: "If my opinions were wrong I would have changed them."

lol! you and my dad would get along great.
2002-05-23 11:03:49 AM  
And Jerkstore said everything that had to be said here, so I guess I will just move on.
2002-05-23 11:14:00 AM  
Too bad she's going to work for KNDN... She'll probably be there forever as that station sucks. (Yea, I live in Sacramento)

As for the whole school thing. If you don't like the policy of the PRIVATE school you send your kids to, send them somewhere else. I make no moral judgement against the mom or the church on this. It's simply a conflict of basic beliefs. Capital Christian Center is a very fundimental type place and if you don't hold the same values as them, then by all means send your kids elsewhere.
2002-05-23 11:22:57 AM  
Yeah, let's all gang up on the school since they're *gasp* CHRISTIANS! We all know that's evil, right?

What about the concept that parents are responsible for their children? Everyone's blaming the school for a policy that was clearly stated up front when this ho walked in the door. Sure, you may not agree with (I don't either) but THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE. The point is she broke an agreement she was well aware of and when they called her on it (and gave her a way to work around it and keep her kid in the school FOR FREE I might add) she went crying to the press like the whiner she is.

Think about it. This is in the news ONLY because 1)they are Christian and 2) she is a stripper. Try this - make it neutral:

A person gets involved in a legally binding contract for schooling for their child.

Person breaks contract. School gives person option: come back into compliance with our help or child will be expelled.

Person runs crying to press, "they're actually trying to hold me responsible for my actions in signing this agreement!"

Country is outraged.

That's it. The terrorists have won.
2002-05-23 11:23:29 AM  

As I'm not psychic, I can't tell her motivations. Therefore it's easier just to leave the goodness/badness of the stripper out of the question altogether and simply evaluate the situation at hand:

Is the church a flaming ball of scum for expelling a student for no clear fault of th student?

I'm going out on a limb here and saying "Yes."

So you're not qualified to judge the motivations of the mother, but you are qualified to judge the motivations of the church?
2002-05-23 11:24:22 AM  
Bevets - well said.
2002-05-23 11:30:06 AM  
I sure hope nobody on today's thread Ever complains about reruns on FARK.
2002-05-23 11:35:42 AM  
Bevets: Meek wasn't judging the the motivations of the church, he was judging the actions of the church.

Now pardon me while I make my escape before I'm drawn into the debate.
2002-05-23 11:38:32 AM  
Bevets: I'm not judging the motivations of the church. I'm judging their actions. They expelled a student. If I was expelled for someone something else did, I'd be rather pissed at becoming a modern-day whipping boy.
2002-05-23 11:38:32 AM  
Where's the pic!!!!!!
2002-05-23 11:39:15 AM  
Oops. Someone already took it. Thanks for the clarification, Bhamv.
2002-05-23 11:40:58 AM  
Bhamv - so we have to wonder about what the motivations of the stripper were and whether or not she was right or wrong, but screw the church's side of the story?

Ah, of course. They must be guilty - they're a church after all, right?
2002-05-23 11:41:10 AM  
Oops, just scrolled up and found it.
2002-05-23 11:44:36 AM  
The church should keep to it's own buisness most of the time.
2002-05-23 11:50:55 AM  
Meek & Bycustin1 - once again, this isn't about the church policy. I personally don't agree with it either - but that IS NOT the point.

The point is that she knew full well the conditions and terms she agreed to when she put her daughter in that school yet she still went crying to the press when they held her responsible. SHE signed the agreement and SHE is the one who broke it - and SHE is the one responsible for her daughter. Remember, the school did offer to help her out and waive fees if she agree to do WHAT SHE SAID SHE'D DO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
2002-05-23 11:53:52 AM  
Anus: The motivations of the stripper are more important. She basically called a bunch of press in to cover this story. That action is neither good nor bad in and of itself. The goodness or badness of calling a bunch of reporters in depends on the motivation.

Expelling a student from school, is, however, bad. I say this because it is typically done as punishment for something. If the student did nothing wrong, then she is being punished unjustly.

Press are called in to cover lots of things. Giving something publicity is not an action that needs to be justified. It's simply shining a light on it.

The reasons for shining this light are what determines, in the end, whether or not this woman is a good mother. (which seems to be the main issue on the minds of those debating the stripper's motiviation issue).

I honestly don't care what the church is. They could be a bhuddist chruch. They could be a jewish temple. They could be a pagan circle. I don't care. Punishing someone for the actions of someone else is reprehensible.
2002-05-23 12:01:26 PM  
Anus: Then why do they insist on going after her daughter? I'm not arguing that what the Church is doing is illegal. I'll even concede that it's odd that the woman would sign the agreement if she was or planned to become a stripper. The argument here, however, is not about the legality of what has been done. The Church is well within its legal rights to do this.

The question that the press are asking is basically whether this is a "nice" thing to do. Churches and relgious folks in general are supposed to be "nice". Christ, Bhudda, et al basically espoused the idea that we should be nice to each other. A church employing tactics like this against an innocent child for something that someone else did doesn't seem reminiscient of Christ's policies.

The problem here, i think, is that the woman is a stripper. The media has chosen this story in part because they know a conflict between a stripper and a church is bound to get a lot of attention, and thusly sell more copy. People then see the two sides in the issue as stripper and church. The real two sides are the little girl and the church.
2002-05-23 12:02:31 PM  
Punishing someone for the actions of someone else is reprehensible.

This girl is not even a teen yet Meek - that's how our society works. Until you come of age your parents are responsible for you and you sometimes are penalized for what they do.

Blame her mother for her expulsion, NOT the school. Her mother was the one who enrolled her, knew full well that she was in violation of an agreement (ie - SHE LIED) and knew what it would mean to her daughter if and when they found out. But she did it anyway knowing her daughter might be the one hurt in all of this - nice, eh?

Like I said, I think this school policy is stupid myself. As Christians I'd have thought they should have been grateful to have an opportunity to help out a single mom and possibly have an influence on her and her daughter. But yet again, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

Expelling the child is only EXACTLY what the school said it would do if she or her mother didn't abide by school policy. And ONCE AGAIN - they went out of their way to give her mom a chance to keep her in the school. So now they're the bad guys for carrying out an agreement that both parties signed? Uh huh. She's the selfish whiner in my book.

Don't go crying "unfair!" when you receive the consquences you deserve. You default on a home loan they take your house. You default on a car loan they take the car. Tough luck - you should have held up your end of the agreement. She violated her end and they expelled her kid. So sorry - next time why don't you try NOT LYING???
2002-05-23 12:04:01 PM  
Ya know what, this stupid whore can screw herself. This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Her kid gets expelled from a private Christian school because she's a stripper, and she has the gall to cry about it, despite the fact she signed a form stating that she agreed to live a "wholesome life" (whatever it stated). If she didn't like the agreement, she could've taken her child elsewhere.

And for all of you who are bashing the Christian's a private school, remember? If they don't want ugly whores bringing their children to their school, which I'll admit is a rather stupid policy, that's within their rights to do so. Anyone who doesn't agree with the school's policies is welcome to take their children elsewhere.

So this stripper gets caught, the school tells her "Quit your job and your child can stay," and she goes crying to the media about her "civil rights" being violated or "THE SCHOOL IS EVIL I'LL BLOW ANYONE FOR A DOLLAR!" Whichever...she's nothing more than a lying, whining whore.

I just realized something...a single mom who's a stripper. Gee, who didn't see that one coming? Yeah, that's flamebait right there.
2002-05-23 12:09:37 PM  

If everyone was "ganging up" on christians, then noone would be defending the mother or daughter "since they're *gasp* CHRISTIANS!" Nice try (not really), but that is not what's going on.

One of the qualities of a true follower of Christ is compassion, and another is christians looking out for their own. Instead, this church aggressively pursues ways to cause harm to it's flock. This isn't the behaviour of a true church of Christ. It's the behaviour of false pretenders.

I acknowledge the legal right of the school.

I expect more from a true church of Christ.

It's you, TheAnusThatAteManhattan, who's ganging up on the christians. The church heads are pretenders.
2002-05-23 12:11:27 PM  
I'm not arguing that in the current state of America, minors have rights. So is what the Church did legal? Yes.

I remember being a minor once, a mere two years ago. I have a hard time beleiveing that once I crossed that magical border of a single second I changed from someone that didn't deserve any rights to someone who did deserve rights.

Is this something that should change? In my opinion, yes. Will it? Probably not. Children can't vote. It's useless to cater to them for your average politician.

Again, the issue is not being debated in the court of law. It is being debated on principles or morality. Therefore facts that "they aren't legally a person because they aren't the magic age of 18" aren't as valid unless you really thing that people under 18 don't matter.
2002-05-23 12:14:25 PM  
It's you, TheAnusThatAteManhattan, who's ganging up on the christians. The church heads are pretenders.

Excuse me? Have you even read my posts Rubble? You seem to have completely missed what I've said.

You and I are more in agreement than you seem to realize. I've already stated that 1) this church/school doesn't seem to be behaving the way Christians should, 2)they were entirely within their rights to expell this child since her mother lied to get her enrolled in the first place.

How exactly am I "ganging up on Christians" Rubble? Where in all my defence of this school's right and decision have I bashed them, other than to say that I'm disappointed they didn't accept this lady as a stripper and try to influence her and her daughter?
2002-05-23 12:14:32 PM  
"Blame her mother for her expulsion, NOT the school."

Unless the child is able to actually control the actions of her mother, It doesn't make sense to me to punish her for something she did.

Could the church have punished the mother? Sure! Great! I woulnd't take such offense. I'd still think their morals are kinda icky, but at least they wouldn't be heinous.
2002-05-23 12:15:49 PM  
Anus: In case you missed a point, he's objecting to you calling these people "Christians". Meaning "of Christ".
2002-05-23 12:16:36 PM  
Meek they CAN'T punish the mom other than by expelling her daughter, like they said they would.

That to me says alot in this case since to a parent who puts their child's interests before their own that is a SERIOUS threat. She didn't seem to care.
2002-05-23 12:18:58 PM  
Excuse me, did you read mine? It's right at the beginning, but I'll say it a little bigger for you so you won't miss it: THE MOTHER AND DAUGHTER ARE CHRISTIANS!! You are 'ganging up' on them.

Meanwhile, the school does not fit the label as christian, because it is failing to live up to the name.
2002-05-23 12:22:24 PM  
Anus: In case you missed a point, he's objecting to you calling these people "Christians". Meaning "of Christ".

Well, that is how they've identified themselves.

Reagrdless of whether or not they are "true", I was still defending their side in this case. AND I also stated I was disappointed in their behavior as "christians".

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether or not they "truely" know Jesus. This debate AS I'VE STATED AGAIN AND AGAIN is about the fact that this stripper LIED, GOT CAUGHT and is trying to garner sympathy and not have to face up to the consequences of her actions.

Whether or not the church was in the right (as I've said I don't agree with their actions) is entirely BESIDE the point and a whole different argument.
2002-05-23 12:22:42 PM  
"She didn't seem to care."

Wrong. She does seem to care. She put up a big fight over it. You complain about her efforts with one side of your mouth, and say they are none existent with the other side of your mouth.
2002-05-23 12:25:08 PM  
That biatch could eat corn out of a milk bottle.
2002-05-23 12:25:26 PM  
Anus: The last point i'll concede. It does make me uneasy that a mother would enroll her child in a school having htis policy, when she is already or is planning to violate it. As such, they could excommunicate her, if they have those. But going after her child (a separate human being) is not an acceptable tactic. The child had NOTHING at all to do with her mother being a stripper or not being a stripper. This braindead church is completley and utterly ignoring that the child is indeed a seperate being (and in thier eyes, creation of god.) To me, denying that child any individuality whatsoever is enough to claim hypocrisy. As the child had NO CONTROL over her mother's professional choice, thusly she should have NO PUNISHMENT for said choice.
2002-05-23 12:26:10 PM  
It's not beside the point, it's the whole point. If the school is going to slap the label of christianity on itself, I'm going to hold the school to it. They can either behave like it, or remove the label.
2002-05-23 12:26:33 PM  
Yes Rubble I read your post, but nowhere have I seen that they claimed to be Christians. In this debate it doesn't matter if they are since if you read my posts I've stated AGAIN AND AGAIN that this about her LYING and using the press to manipulate the situation to her own ends.

And I'm not "ganging up on the christians" by arguing against her side - I'm ganging up on a lady who is CLEARLY in the wrong and trying to weasel her way out of it. Her personal beliefs have NOTHING to do with this matter.

Conversely, I originally posted those words because quite a few others in this thread were taking her side simply because the school is Christian. So others were "ganging up" on them merely for that fact. THAT is why I asked if you'd read my posts.
2002-05-23 12:28:23 PM  
L_Ron_Hubbard: You could drink milk of a corn cob.
2002-05-23 12:28:45 PM  
"She didn't seem to care."

Wrong. She does seem to care. She put up a big fight over it. You complain about her efforts with one side of your mouth, and say they are none existent with the other side of your mouth.

Oh for heavens sake. Rubble, if she REALLY cared she NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE KID INTO THIS SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE!! If she really cared SHE WOULDN'T HAVE LIED!!

Anyone can seem compassionate by getting teary eyed on national news. It's the ones who make the right choice and don't hog the spotlight that I respect more. Get off your self righteous high horse.
2002-05-23 12:29:33 PM  

One of the qualities of a true follower of Christ is compassion, and another is christians looking out for their own. Instead, this church aggressively pursues ways to cause harm to it's flock. This isn't the behaviour of a true church of Christ. It's the behaviour of false pretenders.

1 Corinthians 5.11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
2002-05-23 12:31:03 PM  
Bevets: where in the bible does it say it's okay to punish children for the actions of thier parents?
2002-05-23 12:31:58 PM  
TheAnusThatAteManhattan, how is it possible that you are unaware that she's christian? That's like saying you are unaware that the principal of that school is christian, or the pastor of that church. They're all christian, that's what this is all about!
2002-05-23 12:33:47 PM  
Rubble: people enrolling thier children in parochial schools are not neccisarily members of that religion. A lot of times it's done simply because those schools had better education.
2002-05-23 12:35:35 PM  
Rubble - I'm unaware because the original article I read DID NOT state that, and neither does this follow up about her radio job offer. So the article that you read did state it - the news source I got didn't.

Ok, so she's a Christian. It makes no difference to this argument. Read my above post.
2002-05-23 12:44:09 PM  

Bevets: where in the bible does it say it's okay to punish children for the actions of thier parents?

The daughter is not a victim of the church. The daughter is a victim of her mother who broke a contract, stubbornly refused to make concessions, and ignorantly made a federal case out of it.
2002-05-23 12:46:45 PM  
Anus: I understand the point you're trying to make, and that is that the woman should not have enrolled her child in this school (or at least she should not have signed the document) if she didn't intend on following the rules they set out for her.

However, (and you knew this was coming), that does not give the institution absolute power over her. I'm sure it says that she'd act in a proper Christian manner, but probably does not decribe what that entails and what it does not, and is therefore subjective. And her signature on it does not make it an unbendable contract.

I'm pretty familiar with contract law as a layman (I'm not a lawyer, however), and I've never seen an iron-clad contract that couldn't have some sort of defense mounted against it. This is why contracts for big purchases and mergers are so long and detailed--everything is spelled out precisely. I doubt this is the case with the school contract.

Secondly, no contract can override law. Just because you have a contract giving you ownership of my left arm and my signature on the bottom, doesn't mean that when you come to collect it, you won't be arrested for cutting my arm off. Contract or no contract, you can't dictate terms that are contrary to law. And stripping is not illegal. They can kick the kid out, but if the stripper mom wants to fight, they might not have much of a leg to stand on in court.

Without seeing the contract, we don't know. We don't know how thoroughly she read it (unlikely that she read it at all), or how clearly the school explained its terms to her. But I'm fairly certain that it does not specifically say that the child will be removed from school if her parent(s) are caught stripping at a local club. And therefore, it is not a binding contract. If she were to sue, I'm certain she'd win against this document without a lot of hassle.

So I understand both sides. We agree that the church acted in a lousy way. We agree that the mother should have been more careful in screening schools where she was sending her kid. We agree that being a private institution gives the school certain rights. But we disagree on what those rights are and what can be mandated by a contract for schoolchildren.

What's for lunch?
2002-05-23 12:49:53 PM  
Incidentally though, the bible does contain cases of offspring being punished for the crimes of the parents. I thought it was unfair too.

I can't seem to remember any specific quotes though. Perhaps someone more familiar with the bible could point them out. Bevets, if you would be so kind?

Otherwise I'll have to wait for my flatmate to come home and ask him.
2002-05-23 12:50:24 PM  

Matthew 25:

41 Then He will also say to those on the left, 'Depart from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels!
42 For I was hungry and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty and you gave Me nothing to drink;
43 I was a stranger and you didn't take Me in; I was naked and you didn't clothe Me, sick and in prison and you didn't take care of Me.'
44 "Then they too will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or without clothes, or sick, or in prison, and not help You?'
45 "Then He will answer them, 'I assure you: Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for Me either.'
46 "And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

I'm sure you don't need it spelled out for you, since you are Fark's resident Bible scholar. But others might. This chapter deals with failure to help your fellow man, no matter how desperate the situation, is a slight to God, and such selfishness and lack of compassion is deserving of Eternal Damnation.
2002-05-23 12:50:30 PM  
Bevets: so what do you call expulsion? A love pat?
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.